Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 14	August 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director

(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. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman: Not really opposed to Keep as WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No GNG or SIGCOV. Redirect won't really of any help and there is no coverage justifying the article's existence. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, I don't see sourcing that isn't primary now used as sourcing in the article. I can't find much in my searches, but I don't speak the local language so I'm not sure what would be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palin

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 possible third party sources but they are routine coverage of retiring and missing out on a season. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and England. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trey

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

Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.

"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.

For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Missouri. Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[1] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never nominated anything before. J2009j (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.

Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable so urce.

Source 19 - is an interview again and it does not establish notability. It is what a person says about themselves. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trey has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and not self-published, so easliy passes WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example, that is other than an interview? I am confused because it seems same criterias are ignored on wikipedia for other articles. J2009j (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if not procedural keep for a WP:POINTed nomination. There is plenty of secondary coverage outside of interview transcripts, and certainly more than enough to write an article (e.g.: [2][3][4]). The multiple interviews in Billboard, while they don't directly contribute to GNG, are good indications of notability. And there are many other, shorter articles with secondary coverage that would've added up to GNG anyways. Strong pass in my opinion. C F A 💬 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to @Afrowriter:, the creator. It appears this was a bad faith nomination that I inadvertently assisted on by helping with the broken template. I do not want to close it to make it look like I'm hiding anything, but no objection if someone else wants to do so. Star Mississippi 01:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an easy Keep so I'd suggesting that we let it run 7 days and encourage Afrowriter not to stress out about this. I've found that early closures can be challenged at DRV and it would be nice to not prolong this with an additional review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok thanks @Liz and @Star Mississippi I have no issue with the article being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions. As I mentioned earlier on my talk page, I respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and believe it is best to allow other editors to review and discuss the articles before making any decisions.

I have volunteered willingly to assist @J2009j in improving his draft. However, he seems intent on using my article as a reference for his declined article and feels that nominating it for deletion would be a good idea. I have had other drafts declined in the past, and rather than being discouraged, these experiences have motivated me to learn from my mistakes and improve. Afro 📢Talk! 05:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as this appears to have been a WP:POINTed nom requested in bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada SailGP Team

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

Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability, despite the WP:RS. Now, this is my accessment of sources, ignoring all WP:PRIMARY as they do not count for notability.

One by Sail Canada concerns about the team captain winning about an award and his role in the team
One by Scuttlebutt Sailing News is about the team advertising for a new captain as that captain has been released from his contract
Two by CTV news and another by CBC News is about the event in Halifax, less about the team

In short, none of these help assert notability for the team, thus fails WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having four WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article.

Proposing addition of template Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vonkiegr8: Hi there! My concern with this is the lack of non-primary coverage of the subject in general. Looking through various search engines, the vast magority of WP:RS are not actually talking about the candian team, they are talking about races in canada. These sources are simply trivial mentions of the subject.

Those concerns aside, I think your proposed template l, or better yet the Template: Notability would be sufficient to mark the page as not having enough WP:RS. Wibbit23 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vonkiegr8 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to add that this page has already been identified by two different WikiProjects for improvement, see Talk:Canada SailGP Team. These project teams should be given the opportunity to do so. Vonkiegr8 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails GNG. Agree with your notability interpretation of the resulting reliable sources. Wibbit23 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a similar case as the USSailGP Team; mostly primary and self-published sources. And lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. Sadly, not much improvement can be done on the page since it is already seen that there is no WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable former congressional candidate. Given the coverage cited on this page, it's clear that Kulkarni received more media attention than your average congressional candidate, but I don't think a few articles in national outlets is enough. Plus, in the 4 years since his last congressional run, Kulkarni seems to have received zero media coverage. The fact that his media attention completely dried up the moment he was no longer running shows that he isn't notable and that people probably won't be searching for him in 10 years. This article was previously nominated for deletion in May, but that discussion was closed as "no consensus" after only 1 editor participated. That editor voted keep--but they seem to have a personal connection to Kulkarni, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of him on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Louisiana, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and reasons given in first AfD--Mpen320 (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As it has already had another AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option. Hopefully, we'll see more editors participating in the coming week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, AfD consensus is generally that coverage in the context of being an unsuccessful candidate for public office does not contribute to WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, and there's insufficient WP:SIGCOV outside of his campaigns. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Huffaker

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

Per article, Director of UX Research for Google, but no further claims of notability. Two sources are linked from the article, the first appears to be a small interview in a highly specialized publication, the second is a personal blog of one of Huffaker's colleagues. His Google scholar profile indicates one paper with 1,000+ citations and a handful around 500, not sure I would classify this as highly influential. Can't find many other sources while doing WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to be notable by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, or WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person's publications seem to be in the realm of sociology, and I'm thinking this is not a high citation field - would like to hear other's views on that. The article is a stub that does not really focus on their academic impact - it needs fleshing out in that regard if it's to stay. Qflib (talk)
Keep. His research (at least that done before working at Google) is highly cited. It would take digging through the citing works to understand the impact. That's a big job. For the biographical information, the difficulty is that I found only one short and undated bio paragraph attached to a talk he gave - which can't be considered independent. So I think Keep based on his publications, but the bio information will remain very, very thin for now. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: interesting. A scholar with over a thousand cites should be notable, but there are only two cites in the stub. Not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and of those sources one is a blog and the other is an interview with the subject, not about him but about some of his perspectives on data science. I really don't think we have an RS about the subject himself. Bestagon ⬡ 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True that there aren't good independent sources about him. I believe that is often the case with academics and researchers. For those I see links to their page at the university they work for, and maybe a CV. I did see references to him speaking at conferences. I'll see what I can add. Lamona (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review article I added quite a bit. It still may strike folks as a bit thin, but I think it meets NACADEMIC at this point. Lamona (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the additions provided by Lamona, we see among other things that this subject's work has had substantial impact outside academia (Google Maps and busyness). I believe he meets C7 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Matrix theory (physics). If opinions differ on the appropriate target article, please start a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix field

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

While there are sources like ScienceDirect that use the concept of a matrix field, I do not see how the term itself is notable in the general mathematical community (and even searching for "matrix field" (with quotes) on Google mostly returns results that have nothing to do with the meaning used in this article). So, I agree with the talk page comments. GTrang (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was originally created in 2016 by User:Skpandey12, citing a 2015 paper by one S. K. Pandey that was later removed for being published in a predatory journal. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the term were only used in mathematics, I'd suggest redirecting it to matrix ring. But a lot of the uses (maybe the majority) are in physics, where matrix field theory is a subject. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:TNT. There are potential sources on the matrix representation of fields, such as Wardlaw's "Matrix representation of finite fields" (Math. Mag. 1994), but I think the article would need different content at a different title, so we might as well just delete the one we have regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I also concur that these things actually appear in mathematics (for instance commutative subfields of matrix division algebras are somewhat important in the theory of semisimple algebraic groups) but i don't think the terminology "matrix field" is standard. jraimbau (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matrix theory (physics) where matrix field theory is discussed. There are two kinds of matrix fields--a type of structure in abstract algebra and a class of quantum field theories associated with string theory. The math version has possibilities, but notability is unclear and this article does not do a good job of covering the topic. Matrix fields are a topic in physics, e.g., here is a book on the subject. I suggest a redirect to the physics topic. If the math version is ever rewritten, the redirect could turn into hatnotes or a DAB page. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some editors are arguing for Deletion while others are suggesting that a Redirect might be more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Mark viking's comments i agree that a redirect may be better. There is no reason to expect that the math notion could ever get notable enough fr an article and if this is indeed a relevant redirect for physics (i trust the two editors who voiced an opinion that this is the case) then it should replace the article. jraimbau (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matrix theory (physics) per Mark viking. Suonii180 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Jewish Press#Contributors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Jay Singer

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are entirely primary sources. Plus, GPTZero gives this page a 100% likelihood of being AI-generated (and the author was blocked for using text from LLMs). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jewish Press#Contributors—where the subject is listed—per nom and WP:ATD-R. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST. Nom's point about the article creator's use of AI tools is concerning. StonyBrook _babble 00:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chartism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zlatan Ibrahimović#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Un assiolo (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Ibrahimović

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

A youth player with no professional or even Under-19 team appearances, whose notability stems solely from being the son of Zlatan Ibrahimović. All of the coverage I could find is based almost exclusively on that. Classic case of WP:INHERITED and WP:TOOSOON. Angelo (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zlatan Ibrahimović#Personal life, clearly not notable on his own yet. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm iffy on whether the significant coverage is enough for notability. But there's clearly coverage of him as an individual with his own accomplishments ([5], [6], [7]), no matter if it's arguable if someone else would get the same opportunities or coverage. Notability is not inherited, but this isn't just incidental mentions of him attending a football game with his dad or something. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zlatan Ibrahimović#Personal life per WP:TOOSOON and common sense, coverage is churnalistic and thin as ice, not enough to write an encylopedia entry, and his own career is non-existing at the moment. Cavarrone 04:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zlatan Ibrahimović as per other similar AfD, such as Kai Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per other commenters. WP:TOOSOON indeed to have a standalone article. There is no WP:SIGCOV enough to prove notability at this time. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of the other players in the squad have articles and since he has the addition of being Zlatan’s son I believe he deserves his own article. 27.96.223.192 (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of detainees at the Eureka Stockade

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is along the same lines as the List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about incorporating some of this information into the 1855 Victorian high treason trials instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how you could incorporate this, a pure list, into anything. If there are folks listed here who have a notability beyond having participated in this battle, then perhaps there is an appropriate article for that information. I suppose if this were a list of the notable detainees, it might be useful and worth keeping. I also do not think that the key source here really supports notability. The "Eureka Encyclopedia" is printed by a small press and two authors of the encyclopedia are the principals of that press. It's not that it shouldn't be used, but the article can't entirely rest on it. Lamona (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable public officials in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say these lists are exactly what I was looking for when I started researching the Eureka Rebellion though. There has already been complaints about the length of the main Eureka Rebellion article. We were told a few years back to start creating new sub articles and then link them to the main article instead. I see the Alamo article has two associated lists. Most of the List of Alamo defenders don't seem to have their own biographical entries either. I reckon some of these stories about the more minor officials will help our readers with the big picture. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep the article and limit new additions to people who already have their own wikipedia article. However, most of what I know about lists on wikipedia comes from studying other wikipedia lists. And I've seen many lists where not even five per cent of the people on it are hyperlinked. Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable civilians in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Most of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going all the way down to ensigns and corporals is excessive. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we feel about possibly finding a way to incorporate some or all of this information about the opposing command structures into the article on the Battle of the Eureka Stockade instead? Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. None of the names in the list are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A listing of every soldier and policeman present is far too much detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that with the article on List of Alamo defenders we only have scant information about most of them too. Not many of them seem to have their own biographical entries either. So allow me then to suggest something. We could merge the article List of military leaders in the Eureka Rebellion with the articles on List of Eureka Stockade defenders and List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion. What we would be left with is one article with a list of all the rebel commanders and the Eureka Stockade defenders. And another list that includes only the top-level military and police commanders along with some of the more notable attackers. Like those who were killed and injured and were involved in taking the rebels prisoner etc. Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too much detail. Also delete the similar additions to Suffolk Regiment and 40th (the 2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot. These huge lists are undue and swamp those articles. Also see WP:VNOT. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm happy to scratch this list for now and I will endeavour to bring something back that satisfies all these objections.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl

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

While the Sultanate is likely notable, this award is not. The sourcing does not support any notability. The Sultante of Sulu: Notes From the Past and Present Times report is from an employee of the Sultanate; the El Sultanato de Sulú y la Real y Hachemita Orden de la Perla source is from someone receiving the Grand Cordon of this award; the Memorandum and Succession sources are not about this award, or even mention it; the Notable Members of the Order and Heraldry sources are self-published from the award; and the American Institute of Polish Culture source is a one-mention blurb about someone who received the award. In all, it's puffery/promo masquerading as a notable subject from the org itself, employees, recipients, or just mere mentions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once at most. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ghana. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources available to demonstrate the subject's notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pokémon

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

This article, I believe, fails standards immensely. There is no inclusion criteria for this list, for a start, and with a franchise as large as Pokémon, it's unclear what makes the cut. Should releases of games be included? Release dates for consoles that host these games? When merchandising and crossovers are announced or released? Should anniversaries be commemorated? Should associated companies that are relevant have important fixtures included? I could go on, but this timeline is very indiscriminate in what it includes, and thus is very unhelpful to readers, as there is no clear idea of what is actually important to the franchise's history, whether it be in terms of release information or otherwise. Additionally, this timeline only covers major dates, and no actual historical background. This information is covered at the main Pokémon article already in far greater depth, with notable releases and developments covered there. There are already several infoboxes with release schedules for important subgroups as well that can be used at other articles with far greater aid to readability. Given all relevant info is covered at the parent article, and this list itself is incredibly unwieldy and impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context, this list feels incredibly unhelpful and redundant to readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, History, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator pointed out, it's not clear what the inclusion criteria here are. There's an entry for "Tenth anniversary of the Pokémon anime". Okay, should anniversaries for everything else also be included? Which ones? Fives and tens? This list is largely pointless; we already have articles for the games and for Pokémon as a franchise. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant to the already existing Pokemon series and List of Pokemon games articles. It's like a worse, bullet-point version of those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing clear inclusion criteria here, timeline can mean many things including game releases, anime or manga releases, store openings, etc. It falls under indiscriminate lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup; second choice merge as there's at least potential here. (Canvassing disclaimer: Saw this due to the nominator mentioning it on Discord.) Yes, there are some bad items on this list like anniversaries of unclear notability - just remove them? And yes, stronger inclusion criteria would also be nice. But none of these are reasons to delete. Having a clean, "bullet point version" of the main article that is strictly chronological rather than prose hopping between different media types can be a useful thing. The nominator seems to mention this when saying "covered in far greater depth in the main article" - well yes, that's the point, this is a clean links-only version that's easier to find stuff in, "Greater depth" isn't always desired. This article seems like a great start toward making such a resource. I dunno, in more "serious" topics, it's not uncommon to have both a simple table of Governors of Province X and the same info in more depth in "History of Province X" in prose. That's... fine. Both the list article and the prose article are useful; I'd say that this timeline is far less "unwieldly". SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I removed the anniversaries of unclear importance. And I again want to emphasize that I'm not saying the timeline is perfect, it's far from it, but that many of the complaints above sound like reasons to delete any timeline, e.g. "impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context" - the organization is the date it happened. That's it. There is no categorization other than again by date. That's how timelines work, and IMO that can be useful sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concerns are less so improvement, but that there are several large-scale problems that are difficult to resolve. I can definitely agree it may be decently useful in most other contexts, but Pokémon is such a wide franchise as to where determining what is actually useful to audiences is downright impossible because of how much goes on with it. It's easy enough to clean out anniversaries, but how do you choose what to include? If you choose to include important dates in development, then it just overlaps with the main Pokemon article in a worse context even more than it already is. If you choose to focus on game releases, then List of Pokémon video games covers that. If you focus on the anime, Pokémon (TV series) already has its own navigational boxes. If you focus on meshing them together, then that's just two lists randomly smushed together that have no real need being tacked on to each other when they're better covered separately. If you want to include more occasions, then what do you choose? Real world events? How do you determine which are notable enough to cover? Do you cover every single tournament and site pop-up? If you expand the scope to far, then it just becomes a list of everything vaguely Pokemon related that's occurred, which just falls under Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no real rhyme or reason to these all being in this timeline together that benefits the reader because these subjects are all so wildly random and not very substantial to the series' overall development. There's so many moving variables, and if you were to include everything, it would just be a more unwieldy version of the multiple easier to use lists. It's not like a lot of timelines where their information is valuable in the context of a timeline, as we have several other versions of this around the website already that are infinitely more readable and usable and have less problems with inclusion criteria, while being infinitely more helpful in terms of their navigational use and educational use. This list is just largely unnecessary and impractical, hence my argument for deletion here.

I will note on the canvassing concern- I had asked about this list in the Discord earlier today to get another opinion before I took any action on it, which was a discussion entirely unrelated to this AfD. I took care in not acknowledging or linking to this AfD after the fact in order to prevent potential problems, and if there were further actions to take beside that, then that's a mistake on my part, and I'll seek to improve on that in the future. Either way, it's very much not my intention to canvass, and if I did so unintentionally, then I do apologize. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I wasn't accusing you of the "bad" form of canvassing. Rather I always state this if the only reason I know about an AFD is via Discord to avoid complaints if a bunch of people who don't normally vote on a topic suddenly show up for unclear reasons - it makes the reason more clear. I suppose we might need a new term for "canvassing" (negative, accusatory) and "canvassing" (neutral, factual report to put off-wiki influence "on the record"), but it's the second meaning.

Anyway, for a topic like "Timeline of Pokemon", I'd say that the answer is yes to all of the above? Sure, include media, video games, business, and culture together here. In fact, it's what gives this timeline more reason to exist separate from things like the List of Pokémon video games article. If I was very hardcore on the topic and trying to make it featured-quality, then I'd start with the very best published sources on it, see if they include tables or timelines, see what they think is relevant to include, and then try to tie them together - e.g. things that appear in multiple sources are more likely to be "relevant" enough to include. It can be tough, but it's no different than the discretion editors exercise in every other article. Even many lists have to struggle with the same issue - take a games list, what about an obscure flip phone mobile game? A now-unplayable web Flash game? Cameos? Fan-games but big and popular ones? The answer is, as usual, to reflect the sources. This article definitely needs work to draw from "Pokemon histories" rather than individual links, but it could exist, which is why at worst it should be redirected & merged while waiting on such published, strong sources to clarify the inclusion criteria. SnowFire (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is the fact there aren't many sources showing a whole chronological timeline like this to verify this information. I found plenty of in-depth sources, but those only covered the early days of the franchise's history. Beyond that, there aren't many overarching sources to look for to characterize what should or should not be included, and many lists and sources I could find that were chronological either lacked dates, were only covering a small sample pool (Such as the main series games exclusively) or both. I'm afraid this approach just doesn't really work here. Without sources to verify it, it's entirely up to editors to decide what is "relevant," which is something that can't really be decided effectively per my above rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's purpose and criteria is very questionable, not to mention redundant. While I recognize SnowFire's argument above I think it's an overly generous view of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a chaotic mish-mash news ticker. Pokémon (video game series) presents the info much better. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this topic isn't notable or discriminate. This is an encyclopedia and we use prose, not bullets, unless there's a truly compelling reason why prose is insufficient. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is proposing the prose article be deleted and replaced by this timeline. Of course the prose article is the main encyclopedia article. But we also have tons of lists and annexes and such spun-off to separate pages. This page should stand or fall on its own, not on whether it's considered more or less useful than other articles. Sometimes, just "1789-1796: Term of George Washington as president" with a wikilink is enough information, and we don't need a long prose digression. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pokeglo writes above "The problem with this is the fact there aren't many sources showing a whole chronological timeline like this to verify this information." This is a pure coincidence, but at the supermarket today, I saw that TIME magazine had a Pokemon 25th anniversary "issue" (can read about it at https://www.thegamer.com/time-magazine-special-edition-pokemon-issue-amazon/ ). In it, it has a full graphical timeline (pages 33-39) across games, television shows, movies, and other developments. I want to stress that I was not even looking for this and randomly bumbled into this - perhaps a stroke of good fortune, but perhaps a sign that this kind of timeline is a valid topic that does indeed have sources that verify this information, and is indeed notable. (Note that this timeline was rather more sparse, covering just the major stuff, so not quite as detailed as this Wikipedia page, but it's still evidence that a "Pokemon timeline" is a valid and sourcable topic.) SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The content of this article should be merged into Pokémon. I think it spills into WP:REDUNDANT because this is simply outlining events that could be mentioned in the Pokemon article or Pokemon-related articles. Sackkid (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid spinout article. Their video games, card games, television shows, and movies, all get ample coverage, and all have their own individual articles or are grouped in articles. Listing when they came out and information about them is a perfectly valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 23:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one doubts Pokemon media gets coverage. But we already have Pokemon (series), Pokemon (video game series), Pokemon (TV series), List of Pokemon films, List of Pokemon manga, etc etc etc. What part of this article isn't already covered in an already existing series/list article? Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemon (series) redirects to Pokemon. There are no articles that list everything in a timeline like this. This makes it easy to see what came out in which media year by year. Dream Focus 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I simply added unnecessary disambiguation, because Pokemon is an overarching franchise article just like I thought it was. The rest kind of missed my point there. And you didn't answer my question, unsurprisingly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main Pokemon article is so large, that the timeline you would normally find in such an article, was spun out into this separate article. This valid encyclopedic content has to go somewhere, and not spread out into multiple other articles. Dream Focus 22:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not DF, but: I'm sure all of it is covered in the other articles, or should be. But again, that's just how these work. List of presidents of the United States is theoretically redundant to History of the United States and its subarticles, but it displays the same information in a different, "cleaner" way. That gives it a reason to exist. In the same way, timelines are basically also lists, just "List of XYZ by date". They're similarly useful; a random, unrelated history book at the library I opened just recently had a "Important Dates" section in the front as a resource which was theoretically redundant, but summarized the scope of time in four pages that the rest of the book took 160 pages on and provided an anchoring framework to keep in mind. And as far as the other articles, presumably the "value add" is that this Timeline is a combination across all of video games, TV series, business, and culture.

Basically, most timelines could be decried as "worse, bullet-point versions of other articles", but there is clearly an audience that does find them useful (source: all those books that do include timelines). To the extent it's a general complaint rather than something specific to this specific Pokemon timeline, it's not actually a deletion rationale, IMO. SnowFire (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this one will just come down to a consensus on editorial philosophy then. I personally don't subscribe to this "everything is redundant if you think about it" philosophy. My stance is closer to WP:OVERLAP. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the existence of more specific articles. Orientls (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe its easier to access the information split up in multiple articles for each media, instead of having a timeline showing it listed out as it is now? Dream Focus 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Griffin Center

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Tagged by others for this since February. I preferred to pass this one, and do give orgs like this some slack but don't see how I could pass this while doing the NPP job properly. Has not even a fraction of even 1 GNG reference. Of the 8 references, 5 are themselves including one of their board member's linked-in page. Two of the other three are announcements of an event, and one was an announcement of their appointment of their CEO. Could not find anything better in a search. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find one real news item (not a press release or directory listing) here, but it really doesn't contribute to notability. - Donald Albury 19:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NORG; all the sources are either primary or excluded under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable local charity. Hosting an art show [8], [9] isn't notable. Rest of the sourcing as explained in the nom isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Hadden

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

A quick search shows her notability does not rise appear to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can barely find any indication that she existed, and I find nothing that indicates she would be notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article so let me comment on this deletion action. There is indeed not much material about Ellen Hadden but there are not many portraits of women in WP:EN. Her work was presented during World' Fair and she was mentioned in Who's Who in American Art. She was a tapestry artist. As for the comments by Netherzone. The first 3 references are not employed to talk about Anne Hadden. Simply, the material about Ellen can be found in publications about Anne because they were sister, they had the same parents and came to States on the same ship (Inman Line in 1891). As for the Arcadia Press reference being of lesser quality because these are "picture books" for tourists. I know nothing about "mixed opinions" about these books. I searched now "google scholar" for "jeff norman" and he is referenced in other books on "Big Sur" as "local historian" with some reverence. Also, I agree that she is a local/regional artist but I do not agree that her WP entry should be deleted. Puncinus (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a short bio on AskArt. The AskArt bio is derived from the biography in Artists in California 1786-1940 https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx That gives a citation for birth and death. She is also listed in AKL Online (use wiki library) https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/database/AKL/entry/_00420827/html. The artist still doesn't seem to rise to notable. I will take another look for sources. I don't see how her sister's obituary can be proof of notability for Ellen. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly as she sounds like a very cool and creative woman. Unfortunately she is not notable by WP criteria and guidelines, but her sister Anne probably is. The current sourcing does not support notability, and an online BEFORE search does not reveal anything to support GNG nor NARTIST. The AskArt entry/Artists in California entry is not enough to convince me. For some reason I'm unable to view the AKL entry that WomenArtistUpdates found. Once I do read it if it influences my !vote, I'll add another comment. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Fix ping Netherzone (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an embroiderer. Not notable as a decorator. AKL (De Gruyter) only lists

Further Names
   Hadden, Ellen
Gender
   female
Occupation
   designer; decorator; decorative artist
Geographical data
   Pacific Grove (California)
Country
   United States of America; Ireland
Place of birth
   Ireland
Date cited
   1939
Location
   AKLONLINE

I can't bring this up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.askart.com/artist/Ellen_Hadden/10022351/Ellen_Hadden.aspx	~		~ entire entry "Born in Ireland on April 2, 1877. By the 1930s Hadden had settled on the Monterey Peninsula. She studied locally with Ralph Johonnot. A spinster, she was a resident of Pacific Grove until her death at Palo Alto Hospital on Jan. 15, 1949. Exh: GGIE."	~ Partial
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-mary-anne-ha/127887175/			obituary of sister Mary Anne. passing mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=9MVxp7W0IjUC&dq=Anne+Hadden&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=Anne%20Hadden&f=false	~	?	topic is Mary Anne. not one mention of Ellen.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV whether using the sources cited in the article or searching for results over the internet. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wish I could find enough to keep this one, but there just isn't enough. I found a few books that list exhibits and that name her and list her art as embroidery, like: this, and this. None of it however fulfills notability for an artist. I am also disappointed that we don't know where her art ended up. Lamona (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman Gannon

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), Nevada, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to non-notability. No significant coverage on independent, reliable sources. You won't even get past the first page of a Google Search and, after self-published/social media sites, you're already seeing a search result for a different person. Prof.PMarini (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (G7) (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Transfergo

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

Repost + cross-wiki spam, WP:PAID (recently created same pages in different wikis). Was deleted "Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Doesn't look significant. Suspicious but the IP and one user are trying to delete the db-repost template. Кронас (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: VentureBeat and other funding announcements... Nothing currently in sources in the article we can use. This is the best I could find [10] and it's a contributor post, so not a RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz can you delete it as AfD outcome instead of refundable G7? there is a relevant discussion about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_February_20

WP:G7 was modified and "If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale." text was added as a result of that discussion. Tehonk (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to accomodate your request unless the article is undeleted and then redeleted and I'm not sure that's an option that I'm up for at the moment but maybe another closer would do this sequence of steps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎ per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements

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

Endorsements in modern politics is just people saying "I'll vote for X in the next elections!", and nothing more. This is like having a list "List of Star Trek fans", just in a political topic instead of pop culture. To detail it further:

Endorsements are not part of the electoral process, nor are they required in any way. People endorsing candidates do not have to go through a special process to do so, they are not selected (anyone being interviewed by the press may endorse a candidate if he wants), and may un-endorse candidates (and even endorse the opposing candidate) at any point.
Endorsers are not bound to their endorsements other than in their credibility. Someone may endorse candidate X, but if candidate Y wins, nothing stops him from suddenly becoming a vocal supporter of Y. And of course, as the vote is secret, people may vote someone different than the one they endorsed, and nobody would ever know it.
Endorsements do not have value in themselves. One man, one vote. When voting hours are over and we start counting, the vote of Elon Mush or Noam Chomsky have the same value than that of the regular Joe crossing the street.

Endorsements may still be relevant elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in "Political positions of X" articles or sections, but a list of people that endorsed someone? That sounds a lot like trivia. Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Keep - these are useful signals that are reported on in many notable publications Superb Owl (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources for this topic. --Enos733 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the two users above, and we have already had a similar discussion recently. I see that this is a more principal discussion, but would recycle my arguments from the aforementioned discussion that these lists are of public interest, they are limited to consist of people of note (or certainly meant to be), and it has been common practice for a long time to have information like this on wikipedia and, when the lists become too long for the "mother pages", pages like these are the logical result. Alexander Bonaparte Caesar (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of media sources report this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close We've had similar discussions in the past about political endorsements. Tipsyfishing (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. We had this exact discussion two weeks ago. This is a massively useful article type that only Wikipedia is really good at. And obviously the Trump and Harris ones are quite topical.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG and N are certainly not in question, though because he didn't get beyond Iowa, the DeSantis article is likely a viable candidate for deletion, but the rest are sourced well and proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. Clearly a notable topic. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Kamala Harris' page already had a deletion discussion. As per Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism: "It is considered bad form to nominate an article for deletion multiple times within a short span of time, particularly if there was not a close decision." Flames675 (talk)
Keep of course. Not sure why this would even be a discussion. 2600:6C40:5AF0:7680:4432:A672:D7E3:55D7 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic information and the relevant notability guideline is WP:NLIST. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous arguments, this is absolutely notable following WP:GNG. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We will of course mention somewhere the endorsements for the candidates, and if the list of endorsements becomes too large to fit in any other article, then we create a separate article for those endorsements (in fact, we have a guideline for this, WP:ENDORSE). Some of the above pages (such as the Trump, Biden, and Harris ones) unquestionably are too large for any other article, whereas others, if taken individually to AfD, I could see a more convincing argument for deletion. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Benin (1967)

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

No reliable source confirms this flag's existence; James Minahan has absolutely no sources cited in any of his books for this flag (and others). The Flag Bulletin (#023) Vol.6 No.4 on page 134 says that "its flag, if any, is unknown". NorthTension (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Nigeria. C F A 💬 16:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Republic of Benin (1967). Djflem (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The claim is that the flag doesn't appear to have been real, so I don't see how a merger is appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIS (port)

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Ukraine. BD2412 T 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Newswires, gov't websites and other PR websites, are about what's used in the article, nothing we can use for notability. I can only find funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Saçaklioğlu

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. 4 of the sources are just covering the same 1 item (continuing to invest in Ukraine). North8000 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his company was deleted, I can't find anything to establish notability for him as well. Tehonk (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Music Festival

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

No evidence that this music festival meets WP:GNG. There is no sourcing on the page, and the only sources I can find on Google are self-published and promotional websites, along with WP:NOTRSMUSIC sources like Setlist.fm and random blogs. All I can find that comes anywhere close to notability is that popular Canadian artists performed at the festival, but just because multiple performers on the bill charted and went platinum does not mean this festival inherits notability. With no independent notability presented whatsoever, fails WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(weak?) Delete. Festival only ran for two years. Google brings up nothing, but ProQuest has a few dozen articles mentioning it, most of which failing WP:NEWSPRIMARY or WP:SIGCOV. This peice detailing the festival's demise does have substantial detail. If nothing else, I doubt a festival that only lasted two years meets WP:LASTING. Mach61 12:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎ who will open individual AfD's. Please watch any articles you are interested in to be notified of the discussions. (non-admin closure) Styyx (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

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

Also nominated for this same reason.

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating their significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, if there is any or are WP:PRIMARY, focuses too heavily on the series; If not, are announcment of driver signings or focuses on the driver. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the teams operating them. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. All of those above are also nominated for this same reason. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedual Keep this is a WP:TRAINWRECK. I am not opposed to nominating these teams individually or merging these into one article. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them all at once as they all have the same issues with barely any encyclopaedic values. In this case, I withdraw this nomination so I can renominate them individually. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, England, Scotland, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markku Helminen

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources supplied. A search in google news only comes up with third party sources of a namesake. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: LibStar: I'm no expert on speedway, so there might be something I'm missing, but could you explain your assessment that all the sources here are primary ones? A book like Who's Who of World Speedway and so on. /Julle (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's bunch of brief mentions in older Finnish newspapers (accessed via National Archives of Finland's digital archive):

Helsingin Sanomat, 9 May 1975 - mentioned a few times in standard post-event coverage together with other participants.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 31 May 1976 - same, a few passing mentions
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 22 January 1978 - elected as the chair of the Salpausselkä Motor Club, given some awards. Very short piece.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 30 August 1976 - event coverage, wins bronze in Turku.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 19 September 1974 - briefly mentioned as the "best driver in the series".

I didn't survey all the hits, but the best appears to be a profile/interview in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 1 September 1977 (link, requires a researcher account), a bit more than a quarter of a (broadsheet) page in size. Interestingly, it also features a (very cropped) image of an English language news story titled "Markku provides bright spot" by Ken Gaunt, apparently from either Speedway Mail or Leicester Mercury, both of which we are told have featured him.

Based on the coverage I have access to, I'm personally rather ambivalent. That said, if someone can actually find the English language coverage mentioned in the Finnish papers and verify they are of reasonable depth, I suspect this would lean towards keep for me. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additional Finnish sources and the lack of explaination as to why Who's Who of World Speedway would count a as a primary source, I'm leaning towards keep. /Julle (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who's who of world speedway appears to be written by rider Ivan Mauger, as a rider he has a direct connection to the sport and may even know personally many of the riders covered in his book. From WP:PSTS: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice if the nominator responded to the question posed to them about sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Represented his nation and rode in the highest speedway league possible. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. ^Complex/_Rational 12:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Idrele

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. I find no sources other than databases, primary sources and trivial mentions. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an ATD due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ^Complex/_Rational 13:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lion Air Group destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old timetables, the Aeroroutes.com/Routesonline.com blogs, and run-of-the-mill news reports based on company announcements and press-releases. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor are articles based on company statements/press-releases since they are written entirely using material from the airline. The fact that the sourcing here is also a total WP:REFBOMB only points to the degree to which this is original research in primary sources, synthesising them to produce this list.

WP:NLIST is failed because there is not a single, independent, reliable, 3rd-party source here giving significant coverage to the subject of Lion Air Group's destinations as a group. At best what we have here are, again, articles based on press-releases and company statements, without fact-checking. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Indonesia. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic catalogue style information. Already covered in adequate, maybe more than adequate, detail at Lion Air#Destinations. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT. Lorstaking (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and I'm copying and pasting from another AfD here because of the battleground nature of these AfDs - WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here. It's not a catalogue as it's not promotional, where an airline flies is necessary and encyclopedic to understanding the airline's scope, and it's sourced well enough that we're able to have it on the site. There's an attempt to exclude the number of news sites and blogs which significantly cover airline routes from ever being reliable, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”because of the battleground nature of these AFDs” - AFD is by its very nature adversarial. That said, if you’re going through each AFD in this area posting the same arguments, and seeing those arguments fail repeatedly, then at the very least you it would be better to adjust those arguments rather than repeat them. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contextless list, fails WP:NOT violations. Davidelit (Talk) 12:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a clear example of WP:NOTDB. To know where Lion Air and its subsidiaries are flying as of August 2024, there is only one reference: the airlines' schedule databases. We aren't meant to be a mirror of those databases. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination because of various WP:Not violations. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 18:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CitySprouts

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

Doesn’t meet NCORP per the present sources and available per WP Before Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are links to and a review to a book published by the founder of CitySprouts; which would neither demonstrate notability for the organization nor its founder. The only sources found online are self-published/social media sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bianet

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

I cannot find enough reliable sources to establish organization’s notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References given in the article are sufficient. Bianet is a well-recognized news outlet in Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The deletion proposal is obviously a bad faith attempt, probably politically motivated: his/her proponent is Turkish and knows very well that Bianet is one of the very few reliable independent and critical media in Turkey, e.g. on the topics of minorities (ethnic, religious, LGBT). Every 'contribution' of Dirubii Olchoglu on Wikipedia should be reviewed. --Minorities observer (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their other contributions seem fine - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added more sources Chidgk1 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nothing more to say than "Bianet is one of the very few reliable independent and critical media in Turkey" Tehonk (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve. I was able to open the Reuters and rfs.org link, which seem to demonstrate notability. The Al Jazeera link is not working, which by the title may include discussion of the subject to also demonstrate notability. For other topics, I might have moved for a weak delete of the article. However the comments above lead me to believe the subject is notable and old/archived copies of online sources may be found as additional proof. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately as far as I know it had not been archived so I removed the dead Al jazeera link and archived the rest. Also cited The Guardian Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family Business (E.S.G. album)

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

Tagged with dubious notability for 9 years. I could not find enough reviews to justify an article for this album, only one. It's not really an ESG album, it was a collaborative album. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to what the nominator has said, I couldn't find any record of sales or awards that would meet WP:NALBUM. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 11:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Nigar Alam

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT. Routine news event with no indication this event has enduring historical significance, or a significant lasting effect. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it has no encyclopedic value. It is a common occurrence and this particular case did not force any policy or social change. Though the event attracted wide coverage, it was not sustained. At best, if there is relevant article related to this topic it should be merged with it. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan: Highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Muslim League

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

This article is confusing because it is about a group of political parties under same or similar name. Its infobox says it was established by Ayub Khan in 1962. But Khan didn’t establish Pakistan Muslim League. He established Convention Muslim League. Pakistan Muslim League is the name of another political party existed from 1947 to 1958. By naming this Pakistan Muslim League, we are creating confusion because the article is about a group of political parties. In that sense, there is no need for the existance of this article. we can merge it into related articles, or we can merge it to List of Muslim League breakaway groups because this article, talks about parties under same/similar name, actually came from Pakistan Muslim League and we already have an article about it (Muslim League (1947–1958)). This article has only three sources. And the page gives us an idea that it is an single political party. It looks like WP:OR and it would be best to merge it into Muslim League (1947–1958) or List of Muslim League breakaway groups or redirect it to Muslim League. Mehedi Abedin 08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Mehedi Abedin 08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like this is a content dispute issue. Have you considered using WP:ATD, as suggested here? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a content dispute issue. But I considered other options. However, looks like there is few to merge because List of Muslim League breakaway groups and other Muslim League related articles already covered all these information of the article. Also the article reflects WP:OR as it wrongly represents the party. That's why I directly nominated it for deletion discussion. Mehedi Abedin 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me simplify it for you. After dissolution of Muslim League in 1958, Ayub Khan established Pakistan Muslim League in 1962. It further breakaway into two factions afterwards. Convention Muslim League was a breakaway faction of PML which supported Ayub Khan while another faction was Council Muslim League which supported Fatima Jinnah in 1965 Pakistani presidential election. Muneebll (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muneebll Even in that sense Ayub's PML and Zia's PML are not same. But that article has Ayub and Zia's PML content, which results WP:OR. Ayub's PML was divided into two factions soon, did not joined any general election, which is not notable as a article in Wikipedia and can be merged into Convention. That PML did not survive for even a year. Mehedi Abedin 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Muneebll.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Rubin (actor)

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

WP:TOOSOON for this actor. One credit in a major film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There are no sources about the subject and the article has existed without a single source other than the IMDb external link since 2019 when its redirect to the The Greatest Showman was removed. This should be a perfect candidate of WP:PROD. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Those arguing for deletion offered stronger arguments, resulting in a rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 11:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXBE-FM

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

No evidence this radio station passes WP:NCORP. Sources are unreliable or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 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!} 06:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nom that none of the references in the article pass WP:NORG/WP:ORGIND. The best is the Sun Star reference but that is still just an interview. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE either. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 5 talks about part of the station's history and programming. Source 3, 6 and 7 talk about part of its programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the reliable sources indicated (except Source 4, which is just a blog). ASTIG 😎🙃 13:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED blog. Source 3 is a promo for a music event that has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of a former DJ for the station. Source 5 is a profile of a former DJ that has a single passing mention of the station. Source 6 is likewise a single passing mention. Source 7 is WP:PROMO for an event the station is taking part in, not independent coverage. In sum, not a single source qualifies for WP:GNG. ~~Furthermore, the stricter WP:NCORP is the test the applies here, not GNG.~~ Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair and unjust to apply WP:NCORP for radio/TV stations. Broadcast companies and organizations do go under the said guideline, not the stations they own and/or operate. Since WP:BCAST has been long ditched as a guideline, WP:GNG should at most apply for broadcast stations. My keep stands. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my comment about NCORP, but based on the source analysis, it doesn't even meet GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to trade up to better sources. Aside from some being pre-internet, I'm shocked they don't exist for an FM radio station in a metro area this large. Nothing here contributes to the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is disagreement here over whether sources are sufficient to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources aren't very good at all, mostly blogs -- and even then, those are very light on actual focus on the station -- and when you have to fatten up an article with what basically amounts to a press announcement for ticket sales, you know you're either dealing with thin or incomplete sourcing. A search doesn't reveal much more in the way of actual, significant coverage of this radio station outside of passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Subject has single mention in all sources cited. Merging it with the parent company article Quest Broadcasting will also amount to nothing becuae this very article does not provide any valuable infortaion so the best option is to delete it. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Remsense ‥ 诉 06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Grange

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

Would seem to fail WP:PROF cleanly, if not for their distinguished chair at the University of Vienna. Even so, I haven't been able to find a single scrap of secondary coverage, so that shouldn't be enough to save them. That they have no German Wikipedia article despite a good portion of their work being in German suggests I'm not missing anything across the language divide either. As an aside, the article appears to have been written all but exclusively by the subject themselves. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Theatre. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Radoff

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, still fails the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ComputerHope database entry. This appears to be a follow up from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beamable, note that gamerDNA, founded by Radoff, also has an article.. IgelRM (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there an ATD being suggested somewhere here in this discussion? Please identify a suggested target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think keep the article if we use the sources from GamerDNA and Disruptor Beam and maybe merge GamerDNA here. Sources for Disruptor: gamesindustry.biz, gamedaily.biz, pocketgamer.biz IgelRM (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Canadian Wildlife Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkerspot (magazine)

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

Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable defunct magazine. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also didn't find reliable sources. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Canadian Wildlife Federation. That article should have a "publications" section. There is apparently independent coverage: [11]. [I think I should point out that "self publishing" is when an author pays the cost of publishing his book. The usual objection to self publishing is that, if you have to pay someone to print your book, that implies that your book is unmerchantable and unsaleable because it is of low quality. I do not see how that logic can be applied here. The fact that a source is primary, non-independent, or even autobiographical, does not make it ipso facto self-published or necessarily completely unreliable for all purposes.] James500 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to suggested target above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daaru Salaam University

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. All sources from it's own website. Cabrils (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also note this page has been previously deleted (created by a banned user). Cabrils (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we see more participation in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable private university with lack of reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Paco Castagna

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search in google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep three times Champion of Italy and has ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- I have added three more non Primary sources as suggested to the article. Pyeongchang (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The interviews are primary and non-independent, and the press release is a namedrop. All of them are very far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IRS SIGCOV entirely lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Pyeongchang pointed out. Being a double national champion, pass criteria 4 of (an overly biased towards circuit racing that is] WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. I'm disappointed that the nominator didn't respond to the relisting query. Right now I see a consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games (Tenacious D song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG on all counts: Did not chart, did not win any awards, and is unlikely to grow beyond stub status. This can be adequately covered in a few sentences at Tenacious D#Spicy Meatball Tour, Trump comment and hiatus (2023–present). 162 etc. (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song has been the primary subject of multiple independent published works; the article itself already has three, and a quick Google search yields at least four more. As the primary concern here is notability, and the article's subject passes a WP:BEFORE check, it's not suitable for deletion.

Sources for reference:

Leafy46 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What does the nominator have to say about these new sources brought up here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I am convinced the article could be improved by the additional sources found above that are from different outlets, although they are pretty repetitive in terms of content, and if it wasn't the band's first new song in five years, this song probably wouldn't be notable or very relevant. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Mehta

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

Biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (A note on page history: Following draftification during new page review, this page was returned to mainspace with no meaningful changes by a COI SPA editor.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with AFD, lack of SIGCOV.Naraht (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to get more feedback. And if this is Soft Deleted, it will be immediately restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faultlines (Megalogenis book)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. There is a single review here, which looks good, but nothing else. Redirect to author George Megalogenis? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a book the author wrote is an unnecessary search term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone going to type in "Faultlines (Megalogenis book)"? LibStar (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might type Faultlines Megalogenis or the like. keeping the faultlines redirect keeps his page in the search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are supporting redirect/merge, you should have followed WP:MERGEPROP. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I shouldn't have, because there is a non-zero chance that someone in the AfD will manage to pull up sources that I couldn't find. Hence why I take most things to AfD instead of PROD or merge proposals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Economou, Nick (2003-12-13). "A wog's-eye view". The Weekend Australian. ProQuest 356549098. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
  The review notes: "The reasoned reflection on Howard contained in Faultlines is also a strength, and contrasts with the increasingly shrill discourse that otherwise characterises debates about Howard and his legacy. Interestingly, the moderate and reasoned tones of the Megalogenis critique contrast with the message of some of Bill Leak's cartoons in the book. Faultlines is a political book, notwithstanding its occasional personal reflections. And it is useful and timely, arriving when there is a hint that the Howard era might be coming to an end and that a new generation of leaders (including some generation W people, no doubt) will emerge to take up the cudgels to further modernise Australia."
2. Soutphommasane, Tim (July–August 2004). "Only a Matter of Time: Resuming Our Identity Debate". Australian Quarterly. 76 (4): 32–35, 39. JSTOR 20638276.
  The review notes: "Such insights, along with the numerous references throughout the book to "senior" party sources, lend Faultlines an insider-flavoured account familiar to the journalistic mode of commentary (one would not expect anything less from Megalogenis, a respected senior feature writer and former Canberra press gallery journalist from The Australian). But Faultlines does contain some flaws. The argument that Generation W holds more progressive social values and is pro-republic, republic and refugees, for instance, seems amiss, even according to Megalogenis's own account. ... Another contentious part of Megalogenis's thesis concerns his argument about the nascent political power of Generation W."
3. Ford, Catherine (2004-01-03). "Book Reviews - Books". The Age. ProQuest 363691750. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
  The review notes: "Megalogenis is interested in where the country is headed, "beyond the fog of politics". He's unafraid to talk of race in a way you could imagine a Greek-Australian whose boyhood was spent in inner-city Melbourne schools during the 1970s, might be. "Debate will resume when Howard departs," he states. On matters relating to the complexities facing women in their professions and as mothers, Megalogenis is a must."
4. "Way of wogs, women". Gold Coast Bulletin. 2004-01-10. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2024-08-15.
  The review notes: "Given access to previously unpublished census data, as well as leaked polling information from the major political parties, Megalogenis has applied his own economic and political skills and insights to present a revealing if not always flattering portrait of contemporary Australia. In Faultlines: Race, Work and the Politics of Changing Australia (Scribe, $30rrp, out now), Megal-ogenis says the realities of Australian life are different to the 'truths' being fed to us by politicians and the media."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Faultlines to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding sources i could not! I will withdraw. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I cannot withdraw due to the fact that there was a vote cast (even though it was agreeing with my nomination's assertion of there being no sources even though it was incorrect etc). I think this is useless since the only reason for deletion has now been refuted but oh well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As shown above, the book has been subject to multiple reviews, passing WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 03:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chang-son (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we could prove that he is/was related to either the politician or Olympics athlete, which would be a redirect, I'm leaning towards Delete. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player; no significant coverage in reliable sources found. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Comparative Politics

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

This seems to be a very highly cited academic book. In any case I was not able to find anything on the book itself or any of its editions; my effort was confounded by the amount of citations that say nothing about it, but I did try, and came up empty PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:TBK. 200+ GScholar citations (190+4+4+3). Eight editions. The book is required reading at numerous universities, such as [12] [13] that come up on a search for "Introduction to ComparativePolitics"+kesselman+reading+site:.edu. There is coverage of the book, for example in this. I do not think we can delete a book on the basis that there are "too many" citations and the nominator says he does not have time to look at all of them, especially when simultaneously confronted with multiple nominations of this kind. James500 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I spent about an hour looking for sources and came up empty at the time. TBK is vague, again, there are no clear "passing" criteria as there is with NBOOK, it's basically just "use common sense". But that one source you found looks good and other sources have been found so I have no issues with that now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least three book reviews for different editions, which passes WP:NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Sources that I couldn't find due to authorial confusion have been added and I clarified this on the page itself. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. It is briefly covered in a listing in an issue of Issues in Law & Medicine, but not significantly, and there is an actual review in Booklist available on ProQuest, but that is only one and NBOOK needs two. It is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series, which is notable from my searches. Redirect there? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be an earlier book with the same name [14], as shown, from 1989. The book is widely cited [15], [16], [17], [18], could it be covered by an academic notability criteria? Being mentioned in at least three sources from different years implies some critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:TEXTBOOKS, which suggests that academic book notability is less restrictive than other books (which I agree with), however that is applied inconsistently in practice and I am not sure if that precludes having more than one review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit confusing since it appears this book has been republished multiple times (same series, same publisher), with a different editor each time. Ex. Reviews for 1995 edited by Wekesser, Carol or 1989 edited by Bernards, Neal. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...is there any way to verify if these editions have mostly the same content? Very weird. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so after checking on archive.org (where there is a copy of all the different editions), they do seem to be largely or thematically the same book. Well, at least one of these appears to pass NBOOK. So I guess I withdraw my nomination. Very confusing though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to David Drake bibliography. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey and His Friends

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

I was unable to find any sources on this short story collection. The only non-primary source I found that mentions it is a passing mention in a booklist review of another work by Drake and non-sigcov in this bibliography. Redirect to author David Drake? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reviews of this book/collection of stories in Gnewspapers from the period, nor do I find any elsewhere... I don't think a redirect would help, it doesn't seem to be a well-known work by this author. I don't see notability and the lack of sources doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment better redirect would be David Drake bibliography, where it's mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems reasonable, but I wouldn't oppose redirecting to David Drake bibliography, per above. The only sources I can find on him are of his bibliography. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Drake bibliography. James500 (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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