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

< July 18	July 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., ~~three~~ ~~four~~ two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[3]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[4] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources indicate the visits received "almost unprecedented" coverage? There needs to be sourcing that indicates why the trips in and of themselves are notable separate from the long-standing policies reaffirmed by Orbán on the trips. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Axsmith

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

Textbook WP:BIO1E. Was in the news for one blog post that got her fired in 2006. No notability as defined in WP:BIO, such as WP:SUSTAINED otherwise. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 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) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Barely scrapes by GNG either way. C F A 💬 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to 2024 Washington summit for reasons noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS. Might be able to be mentioned in a sentence somewhere on the campaign. Might. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and 2024 Washington summit. This event alone is WP:NOTNEWS, but the content fits well into these other articles. Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: editors are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Just another press conference; only related to the summit by virtue of happening at the same time, so a merge makes little sense to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Geezy

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

This fails WP:NCREATIVE, and overall, WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. The award they won is not significant enough to help them pass, if they had 'won' their 'nomination's, that would be a different case, just merely being nominated at NEA isn't significant enough. The noms are unsourced while the piece the award they won is sourced to is an unreliable one from a marginally reliable publication (WP:NGRS). Taking a close look at the sources, they are mostly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and unreliable pieces and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I am skeptical about the notability of G-Worldwide Entertainment itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nominated for a notable award twice in 2015 and 2017.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV(both in the Nigerian media and in foreign ones). At least you can look at the Nigerian Wikipedia article and find several sources. I’m not sure about WP:NMUSIC, but it’s not the main criteria anyway. Tau Corvi (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tau Corvi You clearly don't know how the general notability guideline works. For an subject to have a standalone page on Wikipedia, they have to be the subject of discussions from multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject, reliable and provides a substantial coverage of the subject. These are needed to pass WP:GNG, a subject doesn't just pass SIGCOV to qualify for a standalone page. Even the SIGCOV you claim it passes is even not exactly correct because that is not the case. I understand you're a new user, you may need to familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines before venturing into AfDs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If an Award has been reviewed, has a Wikipedia page and meets the WP:GNG then it’s notable. But reference from reliable source that are independent of the subject are needed to be cited for proof. The fact he has Won, being Nominated for notable awards, contributed to the notable movie Suga Suga (film) as an executive producer makes him passes WP:ANYBIO and notable. Per source cited on the article, subject passes WP:GNG. If the award section can be addressed then my vote is a Keep. Please to the AFD nominator theirs no point responding to me. I’m not here to argue unreasonably or pick sides. My word still stands per Wikipedia article guideline.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All coverage is WP:MILL. Not really anything about the company itself aside from funding announcements and press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGTRIV. The article is also in pretty rough shape and while I don't like deleting stuff for this reason, there simply isn't enough coverage out there to write a better article beyond a short stub. C F A 💬 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage out there, most of it appearing to be press-release-based churnalism. But I think enough of it goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV, for example, these piece in the Fiji Times that involve reporting ([5], [6]), and this piece in FBC News ([7]). There is also some mildly critical coverage that for sure wouldn't be from a press release, see Fiji Times ([8]) and FBC News ([9]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclemens1971 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of articles consists almost entirely of quotes from the organization hence fails WP:ORGIND. The second set does not discuss the organization in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree about what constitutes sufficient depth. I think several paragraphs constituting the whole of a news story on a single organization counts; I would describe the two more critical stories in particular as delivering "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" per WP:CORPDEPTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources support the article well and particulary the sources that include some negative press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 12 July 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sibling lists for other decades, so the concept was clearly "split long list up into multiple sublists for convenience". If The Robe was from an earlier decade, thus, then it would simply belong in another decade's list. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in foreign media [10] and some journals [11], [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The journal articles are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and not WP:SIGCOV. The foreign media article cited is just reporting on the New York Times article already sourced. Longhornsg (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I don't see any consensus for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with War on Terror: Articles/journals linked are really just trivial mentions; seems pretty WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Fails GNG on its own. Better off in a broader article. C F A 💬 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch yakjehti committee

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [13] [14] [15] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote because I'm not familiar with how region designations work in Indonesia, but if this were to be deleted, shouldn't Kedaung Kali Angke, Cengkareng Barat and Cengkareng Timur also be deleted because they are unsourced stubs about administrative villages? C F A 💬 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 July 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Mu Gamma

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

No references except for one about a member Naraht (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide more from El Mundo, next week. El Johnson (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonina Liedtke

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

She is an author of a sole short story; that story is notable (see pl:CyberJoly Drim which I just expanded; it won awards in Poland and was subject to literary criticism) - but she herself has not done anything else to merit a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. This article should redirect to her short story article, once it is created on en wiki, per WP:NOTINHERITED, for now it could be soft-deleted by redirecting to the page about most notable award that her story got (Janusz A. Zajdel Award per WP:ATD-R. I'll add I've done extensive BEFORE while expanding article about her story on pl wiki and I cannot find anything that discusses her outside the analysis of her short story; the few biographical information we have about her come from a short bio note on a page of a publishing company she works or worked for at some point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that, as WP:NOTINHERITED itself points out, the "not inherited" principle explicitly does not apply to the relationship between aurhors and their works. For more on this, see WP:NAUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gbooks has some coverage [16], but most are just names in what appear to be a directory... I don't find enough coverage to write an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Pantoja

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. The subject of a short-lived meme in 2016; otherwise non-notable. Astaire (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Internet, and Washington. Astaire (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much 1E, not much coverage in the 10 yrs or so since. Not notable as a political candidate either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough in-depth coverage of him as a person. The "Hugh Mungus" incident might qualify for a page, but Pantoja doesnt. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Farès

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

non notable, written by an undisclosed paid editor, sources are terrible Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Lebanon, and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some coverage in regards to the RATP in Paris in railway journals [17], but nothing for extensive sourcing.French wiki article is also up for deletion for notability reasons, it appears to be a translation using the same sources as here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia Apostólica Filadelfia

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under SNG or GNG. Small church built in 2015. Not only no GNG references, there are zero references on it. Reference is about the religion, not the church. And so is the article other than the 1 "it exists" statement. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a bad nomination, emphasizing the current state of the article rather than the notability of the subject. However, the sorry state of the article accurately reflects the non-notable nature of the subject. A quick BEFORE indicates that the church is an independent congregation in the Pentecostal Apostolic tradition with no claim to fame, even locally. Possibility of Spanish-language sources escaping my search seems unlikely. No relevant merge or redirect target exists, so ATD isn't in play. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the state of the article is not the issue. The description given was indicative of wp:notability, the comments on the content of the article and sources were merely indicative of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeil Gholizadeh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG (which says that these must meet GNG) Of the sources, 2 are just database listings and the other is about a game where he is mentioned. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gallagher

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

Subject might meet notability guidelines, but seems very likely to be an autobiographical article. Primary contributor's name matches subject's initials and it's the only article they've edited. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where Them Girls At (Megan Thee Stallion song)

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

This is an album track with no coverage outside of its parent album. A few low chart positions (the New Zealand one not even on the main chart of that country) is not enough to sustain an article. I am nominating this because my redirection of the article was reverted. This should be redirected to Megan (album) as it fails WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and re: point 1, that charting only indicates that a topic may be notable, not that it is. Ss112 19:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album). I agree with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outside of "Mamushi" and "Otaku Hot Girl", "Where Them Girls At" has been considered a future single (and has charted as such), and was more importantly recommended by her fans on X (formerly Twitter) as the landslide choice for the next music video. At bare minimum the page should remain as an album promotional single as it has received early airplay on several Urban radio stations. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing based on potential future notability? I mean, maybe, but we can't keep based on that. It can always be restored in the future if this happens (and comes with reliable coverage/other signifiers of notability), but not if it hasn't happened yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This song has received lots of plays on radio and streaming service. Even if it doesn't end up getting a music video or becoming a single it still has already gotten some charting and been relatively successful. MC-123 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination: charting does not mean a song needs an article, and WP:NSONGS states charting is only an indication of notability. There are lots of album tracks with millions of streams out there. It doesn't mean they're notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Ss112 22:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources that talk about the song? Being played lots isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be future potential for an article on this song, but not right now. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song, no critical coverage, has not charted nor won a Grammy. Coverage is strictly limited to album reviews where this track is mentioned. Not meeting notability... Being a "future hit", isn't good enough. Crystal ball applies. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. Seemingly arbitrary selection of dates, with little context and mostly copied from an external site. Seems like a Wikidata thing, not really an enwiki thing. Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDATABASE absolutely applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Boëton

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

I don't think the author is notable. I can't find enough independent reliable secondary sources covering his work. --Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors. Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican National Convention

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded again after the article was recreated in draftspace. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Texas. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convention site selection process already occurred involving numerous bid cities. This article is not speculative. Its location is already selected, and planning for it is underway. SecretName101 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Verhoeven

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

After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems to me that this actor/producer does not meet either the general notability guideline or notability guideline on entertainers. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. DanCherek (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael_Verhoeven#Biography: (father; mentioned there; or to Senta Berger#Personal life (mother; also mentioning him) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @DanCherek, I actually found the information on the German Wikipedia page. If you believe the article [[Luca Verhoeven]] does not meet the guidelines set by WP:GNG, you can move or delete it accordingly. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A redirect doesn't really make sense to me, someone expecting an article on Senta Berga would type in Senta Berga - not her son's name. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:13, 12 July 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalidas Madhu Sadhwani

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

Couldn't find any sources proving existence; only websites mentioning him are Wikipedia mirrors, and a search on Google scholar gives nothing. Written by a user (Reims66) whose only four edits were about this person. None of the sources I went through when rewriting the Sultanate of Bijapur article even gave a passing mention, so even if this person did exist, I doubt many reliable academic sources are mentioning him or giving significant coverage. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Military. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Thank you.Ynsfial (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Operating Theatre Association

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

non-notable article mostly written as an advert LR.127 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. LR.127 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic heritage of Hyderabad

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

Don't see the point of this article. The lead mostly talks about Hyderabad itself and the city's name, and the history section is just a brief overview of the area's history which is already covered extensively in history of Hyderabad. The rest, and majority of the article covers the Muslim architecture of Hyderabad, which is covered in Qutb Shahi architecture (the dynasty which built most of Hyderabad's notable Muslim architecture), list of mosques in Hyderabad, Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, and Hyderabad#Landmarks. This article is very redundant with those other articles and doesn't serve any good purpose. There would be a better case for this article's existence if the sources treated this article's title as a distinct topic, but they do not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, India, and Telangana. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a Hyderabadi Muslims article which may be a suitable merge target. Left guide (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was actually about it's title, then yes, Hyderabadi Muslims would be a great merge target, but as I said it's mainly just about the general architecture of Hyderabad created by Muslims, and thus if it were to be merged, which I don't think it should be as none of the content is not already covered in any of the possible merge targets, the merge targets would be the ones above which makes the article redundant. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and oppose merger. I could see this being a valid overview of Islamic influence in the culture of Hyderabad, but as it stands the OP is correct; there is no justification for this. It is also, unfortunately, typical of the work of its creator, in that it has a liberal sprinkling of copyright and verifiability issues, which is why I oppose a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Squirrels

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

As much as it pains me to nominate my electronic rodent brethren (lol) for deletion, I was unable to find any sources other than the one I added yesterday while searching — it also does not provide significant coverage of the subject. The band fails the notability guideline for musicians. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Speaker of the British House of Commons election

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

This short article is about an uncontested election, with no information that isn't already present at Lindsay Hoyle. The election itself was not unusual or particularly noteworthy. There have been other uncontested elections of the Commons speaker, but this is the only one with an article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in line with other Speaker nominations and elections. User:WoodElf 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unopposed reelections don't need standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Floyd

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

Nominating based on lack of notability. Only references are with brief text in minor and local sports news coverage, biography external link is dead. User:WoodElf 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones

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

A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any in-depth reliable coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the coverage on the BFI website is quite significant; review at Horror News (https://horrornews.net/95064/film-review-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones-2013/). Significant coverage here: http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2014/05/28/sci-fi-london-2014/. Cannot really access the rest, except a review on a blog and the interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The director has no page yet. A DVD exists. Another interview with the director can help develop the page: http://www.searchmytrash.com/cgi-bin/articlecreditsb.pl?gregggolding(4-14) for verification and production. All in all, I consider it's a notable cult film. I didn't search very hard and might look for more if I have time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ http://www.silveragepoets.com/music-and-else ;https://www.mrman.com/b-movie-boys-sci-fi-sexiness-in-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones---6428 (caution: might be not safe for work; can be considered expert blog; see author) ; https://projectedfigures.com/2014/12/31/struggled-reagans-2013/ (might be considered Expert SPS) ; or https://www.mondo-digital.com/sickpicks32.html (same comment). Mentioned there: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/001-trolling-is-possibly-the-craziest-movie-ever-made-about-the-internet/ All in all, the film does pass GNG and/or NFILM imv. FWIW I am willing to add those sources to the page and cleanup and expand the page with that material or with other sources that will be suggested.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French films of 2026

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

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

Two WP:TOOSOON lists of entirely redlinked films by presumed future release dates, referenced entirely to subscriber-locked directory entries in an internal industry "films in the production pipeline" database rather than reliable sources. To be fair, the United States does already have lists for both of these years, so I can't argue that we never let lists of films exist this far into the future -- but the US lists comprise films that (a) already have Wikipedia articles to link to under WP:NFF provisions, and (b) already have WP:GNG-worthy sources present to support the presumed release dates, neither of which are on offer here.
These can both be recreated in 2025, 2026 or 2027 when there's reliable sourcing to support listing bluelinked films, but we don't already need either of them now if they're only using primary sources to support red links. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could these be merged with the 2025 article to a broader List of upcoming French films? Presumably some of the "TBA" entries on List of French films of 2025 will slip to 2026. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden crisis

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

This article's subject is inextricably linked with the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is covered in a dedicated section there. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times, and I believe that this page should be redirected to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, which covers this topic in the context of the broader campaign. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, History, Politics, Popular culture, United States of America, and Delaware. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign was already redirected, and the creation of this similar page without a consensus to split is entirely inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The context of the campaign is irrelevant here. This article is explicitly not either of the two list articles that were created weeks ago because it covers a larger scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, WP:NPOV violation in the title. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw per nom. and others. I agree that the title violates WP:NPOV and that a standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with age and health concerns of Joe Biden. While I don't see this as an immediate WP:NPOV violation, there is merit behind the fact that there is a crisis among Democrats regarding Biden's electability – even among former President Barack Obama.

Bourne Ballin (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, merge content with age and health concerns of Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign User:WoodElf 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. As noted above, this was already determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. I don't see anything to merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Users who are pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have not read the article. This is not a list of Democrats who have called for him to withdraw, this is an article about the internal considerations within the campaign. That includes campaign decisions and information on how such a process would occur, including the presumptive virtual roll call and Schumer's decision to delay it. Should he withdraw his nomination, this would be a great article to cover that. Nowhere in this article will there be a list of every representative, or senator, or news organization, calling for Biden to drop out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNN twice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word on this page needs to be on a separate article, it can all be covered in the campaign article or related pages. I'd suggest expanding Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw with these sources and proposing a split on the talk page rather than creating another overlapping page. If he withdraws, 2024 Democratic National Convention would be a good place for the subsequent procedures. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 21:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Michel

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

Doesn't seem to have received significant coverage. All I could find on this player was a 1961 Chicago Tribune newspaper article that he was playing in goal for an amateur team participating in the National Amateur Cup, which is barely a passing mention. Another site suggests a date of birth for this player, but that's all I could find, other than a Czech namesake who ran for political office in 1989. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa-Anne Smith

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESNA European Higher Education News

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

Nominated on pl wiki for deletion as spam with possible hoax elements (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:17:ESNA European Higher Education News). It also seems to fail WP:NORG/WP:GNG. My BEFORE finds next to zero visiblity for this entity in GS/GB. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yawa No Dey End

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

Just like Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP), this critically fails WP:NSINGLE. No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. In this case, this song isn't notable. Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same as the other one, no coverage in WP:RS. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP)

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

The article in question is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC unless scrutinized closely. However, it notably fails to meet WP:NALBUM or any of the applicable subsections due to a lack of sources establishing its notability. The content primarily consists of music releases, alongside interviews and passing mentions, none of which sufficiently establish notability on any grounds.

For reference, you may review archived copies of links from The PGM Club and The Guardian Nigeria here:

[18]
[19]

These archives provide accessible evidence regarding the sources mentioned. I am also very much skeptical about the notability of the musician himself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all this album has is a few chart rankings, which may indicate notability but do not confer it, and apart from that there's no WP:SIGCOV, so it fails WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community Based Approaches to Sustainable Land Use in Rwanda

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

Appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article about a specific topic, and reads like it is building a case to demonstrate the importance of a particular approach. A more encyclopedic way to go at it would be to write an article about the general topic itself (Land use in Rwanda) reflecting how it is treated in the sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Rwanda. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Chaotic Enby, Thank you so much for your swift feedback, I really appreciate your feedback. Honestly, I want to learn more, I love research and writing, but I need guidance. Marking my article for deletion is not discouraging me, I need to be mentored because I feel like I am yet to develop confidence in contributing to Wikipedia, but I would love to keep making contributions, and I know I need time to learn

I will conduct research to better understand the differences between essays and encyclopedia articles. I would love to be guided properly to fixing the article instead of deleting it, as I will learn and then modify it to get it right.

I am open to learning and to make contributions

KingVik Planet (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are zero recorded uses of that term, so an article solely devoted to it doesn't make much sense. This content could maybe be kept, though, and introduced into the relevant articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Makhlouf

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

No indication the subject meets the general notability guideline. Only source indicates he is the fifth-choice goalkeeper for his club and he has not played at senior level. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the first team in the past 2 years

And entered the African list for Al Ahly this year so he must have a Wikipedia page Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft According to soccerway he hasn't played any games. So those trophies? Are they really earned? If the article was improved with better sourcing I might send to draft, in it's current state I would delete. Also @ Mohamedmokhtar22 Why do you have two accounts? Govvy (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage for this individual. All I can find [20], a few brief words about him. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have only One account but I changed the username.

Second, In African Championships if he entered the saquad in any match the whole championship it will be earnd for him Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.yallakora.com/egyptian-league/2795/news/447474/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B3-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85-%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A-%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3-

This link from Yallakora the famous site about Mostafa Makhlouf Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Corsica destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company ever without any attempt to summarise. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to a full list of all the destinations that Air Corsica has ever served and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is Aeroroutes, an industry-press blog run by an enthusiast that re-posts company schedule data "sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website", the other of which is an article from TradeArabia News Service based on a company press-release. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic. In fact the data on this page is largely unsourced but I assume obtained from Air Corsica's website, which is realistically the only real source for this information. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and France. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC is not referenced here, you appear to be responding to an argument not made. FOARP (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractured (miniseries)

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

Technically a second nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractured (Mini-series) was the first (and the article creator then re-created it under this title a month later, seemingly about an hour after re-creating it under the original title and getting G4-ed). My Before revealed no sources discussing this web series in any great detail past routine announcements, and while the current sources look ok at first glance, but one is independent.

[21][22][23][24] were all written by the production company, which has a financial incentive to write about their own shows.
[25] appears independent, but scrolling to the bottom shows the letters PR in bold at the bottom. That, the tone, and the lack of an author byline means I'm confident saying that this is a Press Release.
[26] is the only okayish source, but the first few lines (only part I can access) show that it's just regurgitating the press release, with no attempts at a review, commentary, or discussion past the premise. It doesn't show notability, but even if it did it would be one source. That's simply not enough.

And yes, I did consider a G4, but it's been a year and I have no idea what the original article looked like. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Previous AfD demonstrated that the user kept moving article back into article namespace after being repeatedly moved into draftspace, one time even while the AfD was ongoing. I don't trust the creator to not do the same thing here again. Sources also do not demonstrate notability. Procyon117 (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_iWantTFC_original_programming#Drama: opposed to deletion given cast and production coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Double

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

Defunct game studio originally created as a sub-stub, was unable to find any sources in an online and VG magazine search. Fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Baff

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ella Baff

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

Nothing that would qualify under the general notability guideline. Lots of problems with inadequate sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets notability requirements including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:Basic per available sources [27][28][29][30][31][32] Ednabrenze (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of sources, and 3 or 4 of those sources passes the WP:DEPTH requirement, seems pretty notable if you ask me.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A program officer for arts and culture is simply an office job inside the foundation, nothing notable that gets you an article. Sourcing is a mix of PR items and confirmation of appointments to various positions, none of which are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is better known for her work as the executive and artistic director of the Jacob's Pillow dance festival, than for what she did while working at the Mellon Foundation. I am adding in details now. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - I invite you to re-consider the article now that I have made multiple additions and shifted the focus to make it clear that her primary impact is at Jacob's Pillow DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New sources are more about Jacob's Pillow, not about this person. Not really helping prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For others to consider, I think the top three sources about Baff are these (selected because of the extended coverage that spans multiple years):^[1]^[2]^[3]. I further think that she meets WP:CREATIVE for her work with Jacob's Pillow (criteria #4, which in part says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." That being said. I look forward to hearing what others think. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.
^ "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:43, 19 July 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 keep‎. No reason given for moving to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Skyshiftertalk 10:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 global IT outages

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

This needs to be moved to draftspace [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. No reason by the nominator was given and this is a serious and global issue which is being reported by the media worldwide. We can decide later on if we need to delete it if it is not notable (see WP:RUSHDELETE). ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As long as the article's subject is notable, and the content is fine, there is no reason to delete the article. Gust Justice (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As it is a current ongoing event, it is better to keep the article while simultaneously updating the article. Note that I will also support this argument on every future ongoing events, whether it’s an assassination attempt, terrorist event, or even massive global affecting IT outage. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly a major, global story. Why on earth has this been nominated for deletion? I'm tired of people constantly nominating stuff that's obviously notable! Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A major event caused by CrowdStrike, just like the assassination attempt days ago. AnimMouse (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving to draft would likely lead to the contents being added to CrowdStrike's corporate profile so reducing its effectiveness. Thincat (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly a major global event, where many countries were affected. This should remain in article space. Procyon117 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 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.

List of Germania destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:V.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.

This is a WP:V failure because none of these sources are from July 2018, but this is par for the course for these articles. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Germany. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC is not relied on here, and WP:NOT is not the only grounds for deletion either - you've been on here long enough to know that the sourcing for this article is failing. Hell, we've both canned enough articles for having exactly this kind of sourcing. FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Fisher Jr.

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

Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Entertainment, and Illinois. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he doesn't surpass WP:NOPAGE, then an WP:ATD is a redirect to 100th Illinois General Assembly. Ultra-short term politicians certainly have the capacity to be notable (see List of members of the United States Congress by brevity of service, for instance), so that argument alone isn't enough. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the topic and the available recent citations, I'm not even sure that that would be the best target. Following the nominator's argument that the political stint isn't notable, the best target would therefore be List of Jeopardy! contestants. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best^[a] WP:THREE so far:
1. Cuevas, Jailene (July 16, 2024). "Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings takes 'cheap shot directed' at Illinois contestant and former senator". The Mirror US. Daily Mirror.
2. Lusk, Darian (18 July 2024). "Jeopardy! champ Jay Fisher nabs 3rd win despite 'unfairly difficult' last rounds". The U.S. Sun. The Sun.
3. Holmes, Martin (18 July 2024). "'Jeopardy!' Champ Jay Fisher Reveals Shocking Connection to Elvis Presley". TV Insider.

Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today,^[b] there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.

Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL. The brevity of the term seems to me to make him more notable, not less (it's unusually short). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. The coverage of him as a Jeopardy champ is just the cherry on top. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."
^ While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

Tourism in Antalya

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

I've already copied the introduction into the Antalya article. This is a short article that doesn't have much scope for expansion as a stand alone article. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many book references are available on this topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, I'm sure tourists travel there, but coverage isn't strictly about that. [33] or [34] are vaguely about the concept. We'd need OR to bring the article together, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Antalya#Economy should be expanded to have a tourism section that can include a list/description of major destination and split when necessary. This is just bullet points of coastal municipalities in the city. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - it may be that an article could be written on this topic, but the current stub isn't any sort of attempt at that, and it says nothing that isn't now available at Antalya. Delete with possibility of re-creation.

Singapore–Spain relations

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

This article is based on primary sources, including mostly from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Singapore, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The only non-government sources I could find for this were 1 and 2 They focus exclusively on the economic relations between Spain and Singapore, and I don't think they constitute stand alone notability, as most of the content of those sources speaks in the larger context of EU-Singapore relations. I might suggest redirecting to Singapore-European Union relations. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Yilloslime (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term plus Singapore-European Union relations makes no mention of Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local coverage, such as what has been added here thus far, is usually not permitted for organizations per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think we need to hear from more editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Familial relationships of Errol Musk

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

Errol Musk is not in any way notable independent of his relation to Elon Musk. He ran for public office, ~~but was never elected,~~ but was only elected once to a local city council, he was an engineer, but didn't do anything of note. There is nothing about him is notable other than that he was the father of Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Ah I missed that, but that was a local city council. None of the people in my city council have wikipedia pages. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be great if there is a comparison on how vocal he was compared to the famous Helen Suzman. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Ridiculous to have an article about someone's "familial relationships" without giving him his own article. Astaire (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Ergzay (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP absolutely applies to ALL articles, I just meant we shouldn't be covering a notable abuser on one of their victim's biographical articles. Feoffer (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Engineering, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)

The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got 4 different BLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.

An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.

I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this feedback.

I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what people "deserve". Please read WP:RGW. Astaire (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?

Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including that content with that justification is a WP:OR issue, unless reliable sources explicitly note the contradiction themselves. Astaire (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Plenty of notable source material for an article about the man more so than his "relations", especially since Musk Family got effectively yeeted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Errol Musk - Numerous sources discuss his own life, so that his bio would easily pass GNG. Surely his son's fame directed attention to him, just like Maye Musk, Kimbal Musk and Tosca Musk; we've got plenty of coverage for those individuals as well, who arguably wouldn't be notably featured in the press if Elon's life hadn't attracted so much scrutiny. Ironic that notability is not inherited, though in this case the hyper-notability of one person did engender notability of various family members... — JFG ^talk 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify with instructions to either make the article titled Errol Musk, or Family of Elon Musk. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Errol Musk. I think there is probably enough written about him in RS to satisfy WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K-rupt

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO as search turns up barely two pages of local coverage of his death with next to nothing about his music. No notable discography, chart activity or awards over the course of his brief career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: basically no coverage apart from his death, which is not enough for reliability, although will probably change my vote if the claims for a single being charted can be sourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:16, 19 July 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, India, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NCORP, also appears to violate WP:SOAPBOX. ADifferentMan (talk) 10:24, 19 July 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.

Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

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

No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.

But with the article at 2,614 bytes (a stub to end all stubs), merge vs. deletion is a difference without a distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy per comments of SecretName101 and others. A standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaine Kennedy

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [35] [36] [37] Tau Corvi (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Speedway_related_sources. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the "Notable riders," most of them use "speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)

Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Berryhill

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

Found no coverage of the artist beyond the one MusicRow article already present. Passing mentions for credits on notable musicians' songs does not make notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet

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

Neutral nomination. Bringing here for consensus after disputed draftification and re-creation at Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet (2024) by a number of socks. Not alleging libra is a sock, but this needs resolution in one direction or the other as the current situation is not sustainable. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will withhold my vote for now, until I make sure if it meets the GNG or not. But it's worth noting that the article on this topic has been created multiple times by socks of our prolific WP:PE Nauman335 and if this is also a case of UPE, it would be a clear violation of WP:TOU. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama: for now, as a compromise; but opposed to deletion given coverage on production; bylined review: [38]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Redirection make sense, to me as well. By the way, do I need to reiterate that youlinmagazine is not a RS and should not be used to meet the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You can reiterate what you wish, but there is absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable and it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined (:D) source for verification about the content of the program, in the present case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So what if there's no consensus for Youlin yet? Sometimes one should Ignore all rules and use WP:COMMONSENSE because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And indeed it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined Who said one can't use it? However, I mentioned that one cannot use it to justify GNG, especially since the author of this review piece is a guest contributor with merely two published articles under their by-line. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadae

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

Another incredibly niche subgenre of poetry, actually I can't really see the difference between this and Pilish, which I have also nominated for deletion. The sources do not seem to be significant coverage from reliable sources. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Mathematics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two sentences into Pilish as another example of pi-constrained writing; I can't find refs for cadae as a form beyond those already given. Adam Sampson (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the fib (another mathematics-inspired form of poetry), the cadae seem to have little notability outside of being examples for Pilish, so I think merging there (or, should that end up being merged, Piphilology) is fine. Certainly the term should not be a red link. —Kusma (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: cadae seems to be merely an example of pilish, and has near to none specific coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 19 July 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 keep‎. Nominator withdrew and the redirect vote was striked out. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Henson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources utilized all lack independence from the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jim Henson Company -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - I have added a number of news articles covering Henson. These include coverage of her being named president of The Harvard Lampoon, work at Warner Bros., and Columbia Pictures.^[1]^[2]^[3] The articles date back to 1982, and are an indication of significant coverage that spans multiple years, well before she became CEO of the Jim Henson Company. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The three New York Times sources added by DaffodilOcean clearly provided enough SIGCOV on the subject person and satisfied GNG, not to mention her numerous executive producer roles which should fulfill WP:CREATIVE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear meets SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would withdraw but we have a vote for a redirect. I support keeping the article based on the excellent sourcing improvements made to the article. Thanks to all who worked on it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

Keep: Since nomination, many reliable sources have been added to the article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:02, 19 July 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.

[:2-1] Gere, David (1988-01-03). "Baff: Cal Performances point woman for dance". Oakland Tribune. p. 72. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[:1-2] Gordon, Ronni (1998-04-19). "No rest for new head of Jacob's Pillow". The Republican. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-07-13.

[3] "After 17 Years of Devotion, Ella Baff Exits Jacob's Pillow". HuffPost. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2024-07-12.

[4] I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."

[5] While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

[:1-6] Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[:2-7] Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[8] Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]