Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 10	August 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Injective (platform)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not convinced there is sufficient mainstream reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP and WP:NCRYPTO. Uhooep (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Products, Technology, and Internet. C F A 💬 02:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Gold Airways

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating the Wikipedia article on RMA Gold Airways for deletion because it violates several key Wikipedia policies, particularly those related to notability, verifiability, and neutrality. RMA Gold Airways never operated any aircraft, had no crew, and failed to launch its proposed services, meaning it did not achieve any significant presence or impact in the aviation industry. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article, which this airline lacks. The article relies primarily on newspaper sources that provide speculative and critical commentary, with some citations explicitly referring to the airline as "pretend." This raises concerns about verifiability and neutrality, as the article gives undue weight to an entity that never existed in a functional capacity.

Furthermore, retaining this article violates Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the sections that prohibit hosting content about subjects that do not meet notability criteria and that function as promotion. The article presents unverified and speculative content, making it more akin to advertising for an unrealised venture rather than an encyclopaedic entry. By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. Ansett (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Naikwadi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local mayor. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and India. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [1] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be spin-out of List of disparaging nicknames for settlements. There is potential to either smerge this back, or delete the parent list as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of disparaging nicknames for settlements: very selectively, for entries that are well-sourced. The topic doesn't justify being spun-off the original list, nor expanded to the degree it has been. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It’s marginally notable, but a combined list makes sense. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per InvadingInvader. Who cares if it is trivia? At worst it can be merged. I don't know what genuine benefit it gives to ask whether there is a WP:LISTN source for specifically disparaging place names in the United States -- either it's too big to be in the main article and it should stay out, or it fits into the main article and it should be spun back into it. But the stuff I see here has sources and I don't really see a great argument for why it needs to go, other than it's bad in some nebulous way. jp×g 🗯️ 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. I question the accuracy of this, especially the ones not sourced. Just because someone may have blurted out these names, does not make them valid. A lot of this is just childish stuff, sourced or not. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NLIST as "List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States" is not notable as a group. There has been insufficient discussion of the set in reliable sources which establishes its notability as a set. Also delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disparaging nicknames for settlements, that list was created to solve a specific problem at WP:RFD. That doesn't mean it's untouchable, but I believe that history should be taken into account. I also strongly recommend potential closers closely coordinate this discussion with the other. Avoid nonsensical outcomes (e.g., keep this but delete the parent) or time-wasters (e.g., merge this, then delete the parent). --BDD (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. If the disparaging nickname isn't noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the article (and thus require a redirect to a placeholder article) then it has no any actual connection to the topic. We don't need to collect them here unless there are sources that show this grouping itself to be notable. czar 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Put it in the article if we have the RSs for it, but there's absolutely no reason for a full list on this non-notable topic. Bestagon ⬡ 21:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basically just trivia, also WP:NOTDICT. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razakar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems more like a dictionary definition than a notable article. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. There are three other articles about terms with this word as their title (or at least whose title could generally be shortened to this word informally) and one more specific use that can point to an article, so I think it's a useful navigation tool. But I agree that there does not appear to be enough to say about this term itself to merit an article. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record and anyone else who is just joining the discussion, User:Buidhe converted it to a DAB while this discussion was pending. I have invited them to comment here. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given they have so-far declined, I assume that would be considered to be a !vote "dabify" (their edit-summary, with no further explanation). DMacks (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the last good version (before it was converted into a disambiguation page - an unhelpful edit). There's nothing wrong with it: per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, it's not just dictionary definitions, and has useful links to appropriate articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's nothing wrong with having an article about a word in general, this article did not seem to have anything beyond dictionary-def content and the defined items and links to articles using that term. To me, that looks MOS:WTLINK plus DAB-list. like Is there more to say about this whole concept or word, as the unified concept or word? The next step up from a Disambiguation page is a Set Index Article. Using the SIA decision guideline (WP:SETNOTDAB), this article is all "Similar names", so it's not a regular article, but instead a SIA vs DAB depending on whether they are all "Similar subjects". DMacks (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation: I agree with DMacks; I think it is best to keep it as a disambiguation page. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Carole

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased (although premiered at a minor film festival) French film. Per WP:SNG WP:NFF, unreleased films are not notable unless their production is notable, which is not the case here John B123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. John B123 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. No controversy here. BD2412 T 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity per WP:TOOSOON and wait for the release to determine the notability Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination for deletion. The film has been publicly released and the article is very well sourced with a variety of reliable sources, satisfying WP:TOOSOON AND WP:NFF handily. Numerous news articles from a variety of outlets have discussed the film's production and release, several of which are used as sources in the article. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFTIFY, not released, despite the preceding comment. Should be in draft until its actual release and reviews can be obtained. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite YOUR comment, the film has been released. Publicly screened at film festivals=released. A film article need not have reviews of the film to be "worthy" of being on Wikipedia, see for example the hundreds and hundreds of pages for upcoming films that by definition have no reviews yet. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it premiered at a festival. Then it needs to pass WP:NFILM, which says it needs 2 reviews. It has none. So, my statement of draft until WIDE release stands. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM does NOT say a film page needs 2 reviews. What you are pointing to is literally labeled "Other evidence of notability", as in "aside from the the means of establishing notability outlined above, these various means CAN also be used to establish notability, not MUST be used". Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It either needs to satisfy WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. As as already pointed to you, it fails GNG: Does not meet WP:GNG, available coverage is limited to trivial pre-release PR; at most we have one article noting that it wrapped filming which might include significant coverage (paywalled, can't verify). --John B123 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is tiring. It satisfies BOTH WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, as has been demonstrated to you numerous times by both myself and User:Mushy Yank. You quoting another editor that performed an abusive unjustified unilateral article deletion does not change that fact. The fact the 13 sources quoted in the article amount to one paywalled article is a blatant lie. Article contains references to Variety, Screen International and several Belgian national news sources, among others. The film has wrapped filming, has screened at several film festivals, has received significant coverage, the article contains numerous reliable secondary sources,... Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the guidelines on behaviour in discussions. Calling another editor's actions abusive and their comments a blatant lie is not acceptable. --John B123 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: released, although not yet distributed in film theaters, very notable cast, has received coverage about production and will be reviewed when distributed for Christmas. All content is verifiable. But this is obviously notable, there is indeed no question of it. More available online. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging editors who have previously edited the article in an attempt to widen the discussion; @Bovineboy2008, Rosguill, Eopsid, and Rich Farmbrough: --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - significant coverage is entirely absent from the citations, with the sole possible exception of the content behind the paywall in the rtbf.be article. I'm inclined to assume the best of the source, but even then we're nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. The keep arguments thus far are entirely unconvincing and appear to take press releases from film festivals and rote statements that a film is in production to be significant coverage; they aren't. We need to see analysis and commentary on the production decisions, and/or critical evaluation of the film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 22:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles says:
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article.
Additional criteria for the evaluation of films are outlined in the sections below.
Sources
1. Lourtie, Sabine (2023-05-20). "Le tournage du film avec Didier Bourdon s'arrêtera à Hamoir, le vendredi 26 mai" [The filming of the movie with Didier Bourdon will end in Hamoir on Friday 26 May]. La Dernière Heure (in French). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Next Friday, the centre of the village of Hamoir will serve as the setting for the film Noël au balcon with French actor Didier Bourdon. This Franco-Belgian feature film is co-produced by the companies Belga Studio, Polaris Film Production and Les Films du Carré and directed by French actress Jeanne Gottesdiener."
2. Keslassy, Elsa (2023-05-22). "France TV Distribution Bows Sales on Comedy 'Christmas Carole' at Cannes Market". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article notes: "“Christmas Carole” is directed by Jeanne Gottesdiener, and produced by Belga Studios (“Waiting for Banjangles,” “Benedetta”) and Polaris Film Production (“Cease Fire,” “2 Days in New York”), in co-production with M6 Films. Set around Christmas, the movie revolves around a small-town mayoress, Carole, who is helping the inhabitants of her municipality with the festivities while her devoted husband Alain organizes the Christmas Eve celebrations at home. The kids are arriving, soon all hopes of a peaceful Christmas melt away as the family traditions are called into question."
3. Cornet, Lauren (2023-06-29). "Liège : une maison de repos transformée en décor de film avec Didier Bourdon" [Liège: a retirement home transformed into a film set with Didier Bourdon] (in French). RTBF. Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "A rest home in Liège has become the setting for a Franco-Belgian co-production. An unusual scene that livens up the lives of the residents, who are delighted to discover the behind-the-scenes of a film shoot. Indeed, actor Didier Bourdon is currently filming in Belgium and, with his team of more than 80 people, has set down his suitcases for 3 days in this Liège establishment. ... The film focuses on a Christmas Eve where the mayor of a small town is very busy with her work. Her husband, played by Didier Bourdon, tries to do everything so that his family spends Christmas Eve together despite the occupations and whims of each member of the family."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Christmas Carole (French: Un Noël en Famille) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Tour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the guidelines for WP:NTOUR. Redirect removed twice by IP so here we are. Coverage I find is all churnalism based on the recent announcement. CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this should be deleted. There are other tours like this that have articles with one or two sources and they still remain. We're talking about a tour here, not a whole article. This will be starting in almost two months and more sources will definitely be added. You could tell me what other information I can include and I'll be able to do it. Thank you! 64.189.246.115 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social disorganization theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not structured like an encyclopedic article, and while this topic might be notable, this appears to be a case where I would just WP:TNT and start over. Almost no inline citations, a bit of possible WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS violations all over. Best to reduce to a stub, draftify, or delete. Awesome Aasim 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Extremism Lexicon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable report. One of thousands of reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security that don't generate significant secondary coverage in WP:RS, beyond one of two WP:PASSING mentions at the time. No WP:LASTING importance. Created 15 years ago, with no significant additions since then, pointing to its non-notability. Redirect to Department of Homeland Security. Longhornsg (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commentary in several books, here, here, here, from a brief search, likely more. The report apparently received significant backlash. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camus (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND. Can only find trivial mentions and one review in a blog. C F A 💬 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. C F A 💬 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvolution

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Only a few short entries in listicles and trivial mentions. C F A 💬 19:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, Companies, Schools, and New York. C F A 💬 19:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - edit history is a mess, but seems it was previously nominated for WP:PROD before. Someone did object, but the citations still aren't enough to be WP:NCORP beyond standard promotional stuff. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh Jibon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification and moved back to mainspace without source improvements. Everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE shows a bunch of churnalism based on the announcement of the film and the trainler release, but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Attempted to DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD hoping more sources would come out once it is released, but here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or draftify until more sources are available. Present sourcing, notability of cast and director are strong indications this may be considered notable, even if, ’technically’, the threshold will probably only be indisputedly reached in a couple of weeks. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "may be considered notable" and "notable" are two different things. This is becoming ad nauseam. Can you point out the sources that show this IS notable? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on a philosophy with only primary sources, and no evidence of any secondary or other coverage. Original editor reacted to notability tags by removing references to Hares Youssef, but not in fact improving notability. It appears to be mainly promo of WP:OR, quite probably with COI as the only other edits by the original author were for Hares Youssef. I see no notability proof, so nominating for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Popular culture, and Spirituality. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to page on the book. The book espousing this philosophy and the primary source used for it passes WP:NBOOK. Reviewed here and here. Probably more but that was from a surface level search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarmatism (pseudohistory)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Canary Effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Davey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources presently used establish notability (either due to not saying much about Davey, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Robin Davey in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article, such as edits from User:Growvision01. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Photography, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Canary Effect. This film seems to be his greatest accomplishment, but I do not find sufficient sources about him to support an article. I agree with NOM that the sources in the article are very weak, and I didn't find anything better. Note that there are other Robin Davey's who show up in a search, mainly one who is an animator based in Berlin. I'm pretty sure that is a different person but I couldn't prove it. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per nom. I found a few significant articles in Guitar World but he appears to be an author there so those are useless for establishing notability. Nothing else aside trivial namechecks. C F A 💬 18:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dead! (song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead! (song) (3rd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I would love to see more article about My Chemical Romance, I don't believe that this one fits the bill for notability per WP:NSONG. While the song is indeed certified, none of the sources on the page (save for the ones concerning the certification itself) have the song as its primary subject, rather they are listicles concerning the album or the band's discography as a whole. Furthermore, a customary WP:BEFORE check nets the same conclusion (and as the author of a different article on The Black Parade, I can further attest to this, as I've naturally seen a lot of articles on the album's songs). Leafy46 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't seem to automatically include them, here are references to the previous nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead! (2nd Nomination) Leafy46 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. C F A 💬 15:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the certifications and multiple high rankings among the band's songs are plenty for notability. The articles may not all be primarily about this song, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable in terms of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there's a difference between just getting a sentence thrown in a review and getting a whole dedicated section of a list article like this song has in multiple of the included sources. Those sections are primarily about this song, and I would think that counts for something. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSONG, certifications "indicate only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", and "if the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created". There are a few sources which do speak about the song as part of the band's discography as a whole, however I don't know if those are sufficient to prove its notability. Leafy46 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spencer Stephens

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor primarily known for one part in one movie. Accordingly, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the one movie and one part, but none for other significant acting parts. Tagged for notability since 2018. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. C F A 💬 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He was nominated for a Golden Globe, which is usually enough to be considered notable. C F A 💬 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Omen#Cast: that is what he's notable for and it's sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on his arrest clearly show there has been continued coverage of this person.★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vĩnh Hòa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the entries on this dab page are redlinks, apart from one to the Vĩnh Hòa, Nha Trang location. This disambiguation page does not list articles associated with the same title. It is effectively being used as a category page, ~~so it would be better converted to a category~~. Northernhenge (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, and Vietnam. Northernhenge (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those red links will less likely to be created as it lacks notability or even mentioned in the articles per se so it clearly violates MOS:DABRL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: DAB with one entry, nothing to DAB. I don't see any particular benefit to creating a category for this either. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not a problem if dab page entries are red links, as long as they include one blue link to an article which mentions the topic. I've cleaned up this dab page, and the remaining red-linked communes are all mentioned in their district pages (though not sourced in most/all cases). For all I know this means "North area" or something similarly generic, but it seems useful to offer a dab page given that this placename is used for so many identifiable communes. It's now a properly formatted dab page with valid entries. PamD 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I can see now that wp:PRIMARYRED could apply. I’ve added a link to Vĩnh Hòa, An Giang. I see there are other articles for similarly names places, for example
but it would need a native speaker or subject expert to say whether or not they are the same name, and whether (as PamD says) the name is significant in itself. I still think a category would be a better way of grouping these together though via their larger province areas, given the unlikelihood of notability being established for each individual commune/ward. The articles we do have pretty much just say the places exist. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, as you can't have red linked entities in a category. You wouldn't want a category of "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa". Given that these all get a mention on their district page, it seems a useful and correct dab page. PamD 10:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't want a category of "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa" – True! --Northernhenge (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Northernhenge I still don't understand what you meant when you said a category would be a better way of grouping these together though via their larger province areas. Could you clarify? PamD 12:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have resembled "Districts which include a commune called Vinh Hoa" which, now I’ve seen it written down, doesn’t look sensible. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as you suggest, those of us who aren't familiar with Vietnamese have no right to make assumptions as to whether these other places are the same or different - but I've recently almost confused placenames Unsworth and Usworth in my own country, so there's no reason to suppose that they are the same. Best left well alone, as long as dab pages are correctly formatted and we don't have red links without a mention in a blue-linked article. PamD 10:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vietnamese vi:Vĩnh_Hòa_(định_hướng) has 14 blue links, of which 4+2 seem substantial (non-stub) articles. These are not the usual dab redlinks because of non-notability, but because of language barrier and (deemed) low importance for en-wiki. But that's not the problem of the Dab page, so I appeal to WP:IAR in this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a Disamb page it may required cleanup but not a goog idea to delete. 2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Water Dog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~I believe that this 18-year-old article is, in fact, a very long lived hoax.~~ The article itself features no sources that even mention the "Moscow Water Dog". The article for, and every source regarding, the Russian Black Terrier (which this article claims is in part derived from the Moscow Water Dog) do not mention the Water Dog at all. I conducted a review of online sources; the only sources I can find that mention this supposed breed are purely AI-generated slop that has combed from Wikipedia, and a work of fiction that uses this article as inspiration.. There is as far as I can tell absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MWD or any attempt at breeding it, so I believe the article is an intentional hoax added to Wikipedia when quality control was much lower (2006!) which has somehow survived until now. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Russia. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this subject appears in other languages on Wikipedia, such as the country of origin. Can you check the Russian Wikipedia for potential sources? I am not opposed to deletion or keeping but I am opposed to speedy deletion. The creator for the article also was a prolific editor in animal-related articles, which makes me think it is unlikely to be a hoax. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an intentional hoax for this editor is most unlikely. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I completely forgot to check other languages. The Russian article does feature a few sources that seem to confirm the water dog's existance so that takes hoax off the table!

Regardless, I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to support the article remaining, as as far as I can tell the dog was never a registered breed and there's very little coverage of it, and even less in English. The sources that do mention it purely mention it in passing when discussing either Red Star Kennels or the Black Terrier.

Russian wikipedia source one

source two CoconutOctopus talk 18:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus, in honor of Yoman, would you mind striking the hoax text from the intro? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CoconutOctopus for striking. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: search books.google.com, scroll past the first page of results (those are mostly all Wikipedia mirrors), and there are scores of legit books discussing this breed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaji Aluko

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any evidence this person passes WP:PROF Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. He seems to have been a professor of no special distinction or dishonor, and is now a Nigerian "technocrat" as he describes it in a YouTube video. Nicmart (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slime (homemade toy)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article already exists at gunge; I propose we delete/redirect this article to the aforementioned page. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These seem like entirely different articles to me. This page is specifically about the homemade toy (hence the title), while gunge is about a different substance's use on television. The two substances have different ingredients and properties, and the sources used in the two articles don't overlap. Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Lal Khanna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. No indication of notability at all. References are trivial mentions or don't mention the subject. Found a few namechecks in Google Books (directory/Who's Who books) and nothing on newspapers.com or elsewhere. Google returns nothing. C F A 💬 16:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and Delhi. C F A 💬 16:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination, In research I can only find results about other people with the same name fails in GNG. 2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Khanna (businessman)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. No indication of notability at all. References are either trivial mentions, primary, or don't mention the subject at all. Couldn't find anything about him. Googling "Vinod Khanna K group" returns nothing except his LinkedIn. Another case of WP:REFBOMBING. C F A 💬 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Delhi. C F A 💬 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Khanna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of the Khanna series of articles created and maintained by an apparent COI editor. Completely fails WP:BASIC. One of the worst cases of WP:REFBOMBING I've ever seen. Sources are either trivial mentions or don't mention the subject at all. Googling "Aditya Khanna" returns nothing – I can only find results about a tennis player. If you look closely, you'll notice that the majority of the article is cited to primary sources. There are 8 citations to his LinkedIn, for example. C F A 💬 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Delhi. C F A 💬 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mainly primary sources. I see that there is some notability/coverage in a few areas, but the fact is that the article is mainly primary sources and does not quite meet the longevity criteria ("Notability is not temporary"). MohReddy (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Patterson Lee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Very limited news coverage, mostly mentioned in passing or in a list of other firms. SSR07 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Architecture. SSR07 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most news mentions are hiring and promotion announcements. Most of the remainder are passing mentions as the architecture firm for some project. I found no significant coverage. - Donald Albury 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Squire Arden

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Novel by prolific but now obscure writer, question if everything she wrote is notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many contemporary reviews to the book are able to be found on newspapers.com and archive.org. Per WP:OLDBOOK notability for non-contemporary books is harder to determine, and so "possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book". This has been reprinted to the modern day enough to make finding literary sources, which likely exist, a pain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us these contemporary reviews? PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PatGallacher One here, quite lengthy

another here

one here

There are many, many more on Newspapers.com but I am away from the computer right now and the proxy is difficult so I cannot link them, but this theoretically suffices. This seemed to have been a popular book at the time and I'd bet there's some later coverage reflecting on it but it's difficult to find in the sea of 100 reprints. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some of those newspapers.com contemporary reviews: one from the Pall Mall Gazette, and another from the Examiner. This demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Belize, London

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources. Lacking any real content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, United Kingdom, and Belize. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Killer Whales

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rudoy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. The Russian sources on this person's activities presented in the article are either blogs or very insignificant media. The conformity of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SINGER criteria are also failed. Dantiras (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thejo Kumari Amudala

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, an obvious paid-editing vanity page by an obvious block-evading sockpuppet, and speedy-deleted three times already G5. It's been bounced back and forth to draft, and it seemed best to take it to AFD so the next time it's created we have a quick route to db-G4.

Ms. Amudala is chiefly notable as an avid collector of paid bogus awards, including the "Dadasaheb Phalke Icon award (a paid award completely unrelated to the Dadasaheb Phalke Award), "Mahatma Gandhi International Nobel Peace Award", "Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Award", the "Real Superhero Award" (supposedly awarded by the United Nations), etc. All of the gushing references are obviously paid placement WP:NEWSORGINDIA fluff: North American and European editors will please note that CNBC TV18 is a joint venture, operating with quite different editorial standards to the US and European CNBC networks, so is not the reliable source it might appear. Her role with the World Human Rights Protection Commissions is unclear: what does a President of the WHRPC actually do? The WHRPC itself is an NGO of unclear notability, which among other things awards "honorary doctorates" although it's not a university. The article claims that she won "Mrs. Asia Universe" in 2022: one of the sources cited says it was "Ms. Universe", not that it makes much difference in this case. I can't find any significant coverage of her in reliable secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Wikishovel (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no substantive claims to what she has actually done in her life to win all these awards (either here or in the sources cited), just a bunch of links to poorly researched promotional/paid/self promotional articles about her winning awards which sound similar to real awards, but none of which are actually awards that have been won by anyone else or are given by notable organisations. Obvious vanity page, and very likely UPE. Melcous (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious UPE that the page creator got indeffed for. Jdcomix (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I usually let these resolve as I don't like to short-circuit community discussions, but this is now a confirmed sock of a long term spammer (not just a UDPE block). I've G5ed the article unless there is some strong objection. Otherwise, if someone could close this out as I'm not up to speed to the current process. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Diamond Didi Zindabad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By checking the reference, you will understand that the coverages are very significant. Besides, no reference of Newspaper under WP:NEWSORGINDIA has been used here. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No GNG whatsoever. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egbema tribe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article with only one source, poor formatting. While possibly notable, it should be draftified at the very least to be remade. LR.127 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria. LR.127 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep . The article is 16 years old. No one is going to fix an article that old if it is draftspace so at that point that's just putting it in limbo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuppam Airport

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no actual evidence that proves that the airport is under construction. There is no development related to the establishment of this airport. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalakot prison escape

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to fail WP:NEVENTS due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE coverage and a lack of WP:LASTING impact. The coverage seems routine and since WP is not a newspaper, we shouldn't create articles on every event just because it has been reported in WP:109PAPERS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does the prison itself have any notability? I don't dispute this fails NEVENT, but I am curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominations, so far no Independent coverage by reliable sources has found it also lack in WP:NNEWS. 2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there is plenty of reliable coverage. Lasting coverage is the question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camarines (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation: Camarines already redirects to Ambos Camarines, and a hatnote linking to Camarines Norte and Sur is already at the top of the article. HueMan1 (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NNI News

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of many news agencies in Pakistan, but it doesn't seem to meet the GNG or even NORG which passes WP:SIRS. Most of coverage is routine and focused on the agency's own people. For example, this which says A photographer of NNI news agency ... also lost their lives in the same incident. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rowley (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One notable Peter, another not so notable and one partial match can all be handled by one or two hatnotes in Peter Rowley. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Shacham

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-remarkable diplomat. The only WP:SIGCOV, the Miami Herald story cited in the article, fails WP:BLPCRIME. If that's used to try to establish notability, we have a WP:BLP1E situation. Longhornsg (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and Florida. Longhornsg (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be pedantic, a piece of coverage cannot fail BLPCRIME, but the article topic sure seems to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A number of G-hits, but I don't see anything else that would help establish notability. Donald Albury 12:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom & above. FloridaMan21 23:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Zougam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Madrid train bombings suspects

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Besides the WP:BLP considerations, absolutely no need for a separate page for this content per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Morocco, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article. Not actually as many BLP issues as I thought from the title, just a list of those convicted + one high profile very studied false arrest. The main article actually does not have a list of the men convicted of directly perpetrating the attack. The other sections are perhaps unnecessary but I feel a list of the main perpetrators would improve the main article. It appears unsourced but it is sourced to the Guardian article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([2], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ([3] [4] [5] [6], not WP:SIGCOV.

NNPI is one of many, many unremarkable categories of Controlled Unclassified Information, to where this article should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carboni

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Her main claim to notability appears to be her collaboration with Mick Simpson, whose own notability remains unclear, but in any case on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only coverage I could find of her in a WP:BEFORE search is in music blogs, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. Salvacarb (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Salvacarb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Buang Ruk Kamathep

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wahrman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No matter whether it is within the article or outside the article, no source that meets the notability can be found. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also found nothing usable Traumnovelle (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. For some reason, I didn't see the references that were already present in the article (which do seem to prove some notability), so I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil RT

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Danny Kennedy (speedway rider)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV about the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Evening Times from 1978 (here and here) states that they were the "Australian under-21 champion". It's not clear what Australian under-21 competition is being referred to, however this may go towards passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage here and here; also found a brief bit from Old Bike Australasia two years ago ("Danny Kennedy, born in Ballarat in 1958, enjoyed seven seasons in UK from 1976 to 1982, the last four years riding for the Poole Pirates, where he was immensely popular. Sadly he died from a brain tumour in 1993."). What makes the book sources in the article primary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TarnishedPath's and BeanieFan11's recommendations. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per BeanieFan11's and my comments above. TarnishedPath^talk 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Khanna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability at all. I'm surprised this has been up this long. A Google search returns nothing (and for me there are more results about a Toronto lawyer than anything else). In-article sources are either trivial mentions or don't mention the subject at all. Looks like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. C F A 💬 03:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Delhi. C F A 💬 03:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can find potential sources for other Navin Khannas. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nomination. Along with Traumnovelle, I can only find results about other people with the same name. TarnishedPath^talk 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines, including general biography and sports. MohReddy (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: As it failed in WP:GNG and WP:WELLKNOWN criteria to meet notability. 2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Davis discography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The main article Lynn Davis (singer) seems to be on its way to deletion. Aside from that, Lynn Davis has no chart entries in her name. The singles listed do not credit her as a featured/guest singers. The soundtrack and background appearances have no references. The page's only reference is chart history for the Japanese singer Toshinobu Kubota but again, that doesn't list Lynn Davis' name anywhere. She has no albums in her own name. This has no notability. Sackkid (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Lists, and California. C F A 💬 02:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see why a standalone page for discography is needed. NavjotSR (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Place (2024 TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON; short article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG and is going to be released in a month. No point in draftifying it. People are more likely to expand it in mainspace and readers may be looking for an article close to the release date. C F A 💬 02:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has received 1500 page views in the 7 days since creation. C F A 💬 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the only independent sigcov is from today.com and I'm skeptical about the reliability of that source. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from USA Today, Deadline, Screen Rant, Pop Culture, Billboard, The Oklahoman, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, and there's a lot more. There is more than enough coverage to write a good C-class article. Draftifying is pointless because people are much more likely to expand the article when it is in mainspace. C F A 💬 14:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:COMMONOUTCOMES It's an American network primetime sitcom and is pretty much regarded as a well-known actor/singer's return to television. This isn't getting deleted at this point and this is a very common new show stub state this time of year. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Nate, and per a plethora of Google News hits not reflected in the article. BD2412 T 01:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin SD Sengokuden Densetsu no Daishougun Hen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been flagged for notability and lack of sources since 2016. A search for sources has found nothing, I'm nominating it for lack of notability. Brocade River Poems 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SD Gundam#Musha Gundam series as an alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Same result for me, I found nothing fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of intersex Olympians

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirected by Kingsif but I think this article is well written and should be kept. But merge is also possible. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Olympics. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fail to see how this meets WP:NLIST. Saying that this can't be at AfD due to copyright is incorrect. AfD can decide to redirect a page as an alternative to deletion. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am slightly confused for the rationale of @Kingsif for how the new article Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games came to be if it's largely a copy of this current article with a new title and slight expansion - it seems more like the article Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games should never have had this list copied over there and that list content moved back into this article here. I see that it was mentioned at Talk:List of intersex Olympians#New discussion on how to present article - but didn't actually see any consensus to just move this list here to over there. The only consensus I saw there was to mention controversial cases there, not to have this entire list of athletes in it, which arguably doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with Sex verification.

In any case, AfD for this article here is wrong since we can't delete this article here, given that it serves as the history for the other article per our WP:COPYRIGHT rules for page history.

So I think reading that linked discussion, keeping this stand-alone list article separate and moving the list content back out of that other article and just linking it back to this list article would be more appropriate per WP:PRECISE. Raladic (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRECISE is a policy on article titling, not about content. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you read to the end of that discussion, there was agreement for convert the article [List of intersex Olympians] to be about sex verification and include a list of cases. Which is what happened - you’ll see the rationale at the talkpage is largely about how the content is framed, and at least one user has already appreciated the change. Besides that, there have been, last year and this year, users concerned that a contextless list is vulnerable to readers misunderstanding and/or malicious editors vandalising. Of course, you’re allowed the opinion that the list is better standalone…

I’m not sure why the nominator here jumped to an AfD instead of asking about the decision to redirect — and then, if they disagreed, starting or joining talkpage discussion. But I would encourage you (and the nom, and everyone else) to join talkpage discussion. As the main maintainer of the article(s), I’m trying my best to get users involved in discussion aiming at improvements, and then implementing improvements, because it’s a subject that can’t really be left unmaintained. The more participation and different views (which can come together to find a middle ground that may be ideal), the better. Kingsif (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted This was part of my thinking to convert the article to be about sex verification and include a list of cases meaning the list moved over there would be a list of specific cases, not the entirely of the list of any intersex athlete. Raladic (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sex verification and intersex athletes at the Olympic Games: Appears to fail WP:NLIST. Article can be redirected to preserve edit history. TarnishedPath^talk 06:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- pace User:TarnishedPath, I think this does meet WP:NLIST: searching "intersex Olympic athletes" into Google comes up with a whole range of sources where intersex athletes are discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which is the bar set by NLIST. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, per WP:NLIST "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. The notability of a list/group/set is not based on the notability of its members. In order for a list to be notable we must be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources, which are independent from the subject which discuss the list/group/set in depth. I couldn't find that when I conducted searches. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there are many good sources that discuss intersex athletes as a group or category. See for instance this book, largely on the topic, this Guardian article (on the topic of intersex athletes, inspired by Caster Semenya), extensive discussion in Foreign Policy here, in Sports Med Open here. Per NLIST, it is not required that those sources should list intersex athletes, or that any given member of our list should be discussed in them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was discussed at the talkpage beforehand. Given that there is minimal attention there - despite notifying related talk pages - the three person consensus seemed actionable. But yeah, don't know why the nom and another !vote don't know why it was redirected (and would love everyone here to be involved with discussions in future!).
WRT the nom's concerns, the list still exists at the target of the redirect, and the prose content has been merged there. You could effectively consider it a page title move if concerned about losing content (not done as a page move because of incorporating prose from other articles, too) - there was agreement that presenting the list with more context would be beneficial to reader understanding. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, it's fully covered there, and there seems no proper reason for having this as a separate article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Folks, let's not have two articles on the same topic. Yes, articles are allowed to have lists in them and list pages are allowed to have prose sections, they don't have to have be separate. Including the list in the new article makes the most sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a related note, I would like to ask nominator @MikutoH: why they created Intersex people in sports as itself a redirect to List of intersex Olympians? Those are different topics and if the former should redirect to anything, Sex verification in sports is a more apt target. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flash Pass attractions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unsourced, dubious notability given that Flash Pass is itself a redirect * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NLIST. C F A 💬 02:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Technology, and Lists. C F A 💬 02:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail WP:NLIST. TarnishedPath^talk 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominations seems dubious with no notability.2402:AD80:A1:8D76:1:0:E275:1FDD (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]