Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 22

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      September 27 (Fri)      September 26 (Thu)      September 25 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Gao Village Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable fork of Gao Village (which is also questionable notable). Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if either of these are notable I think it would be the literary arc and not the location. Journey to the West is important enough that I would be surprised if there was not discussion of this section of it (if it constitutes an arc, that is) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's two chapters of a book, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. If important, it should first be covered in Journey to the West and then spun out WP:SPINOUT, but currently it's not even mentioned there. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sgeureka. WP:BEFORE doesn't give WP:SIGCOV. This hasn't even earned mention in the main article, so it's premature to start splitting out individual subplots, per WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but for reasons other than notability… there are zero source references given in this article, only the primary text itself. This seems very much like WP:OR to me. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RBS TV Santa Cruz do Sul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local Brazilian TV station fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this station in independent sources (the only sources the articles are to press releases of the station or its parent). Furthermore, under WP:BRANCH, we would need evidence of coverage outside its market area and that's not in evidence either. I am seeking a consensus for a redirect to RBS TV as an AtD, which was in place until recently reverted by the page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Link to related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RBS TV Santa Maria

• Redirect – Per nom. Municipal branches do not have independent notability. Svartner (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per nom, no seperate notability.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RBS TV Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local Brazilian TV station fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this station in independent sources (the only sources the articles are to press releases of the station or its parent). Furthermore, under WP:BRANCH, we would need evidence of coverage outside its market area and that's not in evidence either. I am seeking a consensus for a redirect to RBS TV as an AtD, which was in place until recently reverted by the page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Link to related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RBS TV Santa Cruz do Sul

• Redirect – Per nom. Municipal branches do not have independent notability. Svartner (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom, no independent notability

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland Telephone Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Couldn't find any significant coverage. I suggest a redirect to Maitland Historical Museum. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Technology, and Florida. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge together with the historical museum referenced in the nom to Art and History Museums - Maitland (red link will be fixed shortly). Neither has standalone notability per sourcing I've found and can be amply covered in the soon to be target article. Star Mississippi 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now exists. I think it meets N:ORG regardless of how this closes, but it makes sense as a target. Star Mississippi 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a separate article; cover in the article for Maitland, Florida. In the Google search, the museum is listed as an attraction in some of the most unexpected places - a bunch of real estate listings, an appliance repair company, and this flower shop. Unfortunately, the flower shop has a link to this Wikipedia article, so a REDIRECT will be needed. At most I found a single paragraph about the museum; the rest were mentions in a list of attractions. Lamona (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is in a lot of tourism directory listings (both in print and online) but unfortunately not much beyond that.Myotus (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability. If editors want to add it to the other Art and History Museums page afterwards they can do that separately.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (San Leandro, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm gonna say that this may not pass WP:GNG, and should be returned to a redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California or deleted. It also fails WP:CORP. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California: or delete. This fails WP:NCHURCH or WP:NCORP. It, in fact, is inappropriate branch article based on WP:BRANCH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagreed. Many prominent churches have Wikipedia pages like All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) for example. This article is prominent because of the history referenced in several cited published works, and its latest rector who has had national and international impact in his ministry. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific claims, comments, or content that need to be updated with sources please indicate such and the article can be improved. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested above. A search for sources turns up only one instance of WP:SIGCOV, and it's in Episcopal News Service, which while reliable for facts is not independent and thus does not contribute to WP:GNG. Sources in the article are neither reliable nor independent. As for the comment above about All Saints Pasadena, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and All Saints Pasadena definitely meets GNG -- not all churches are the same). Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A section on this congregation's prominence and notability as a pioneer in the area of ecotheology has been added. This deletion post needs to be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you've added are not independent (EpiscopalChurch.org, Episcopal News Service) or are primary (like the EBMUD) map. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California: As nom. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, doesn't meet WP:NCHURCH. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new section was added on the notability of this congregation in its unique and pioneering commitment to ecotheology. This deletion thread should be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keep Prominence of congregation has been added. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah1979 Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this conversation by posting the same reply to multiple comments. You have articulated no rationale for a "speedy keep" (and frankly no policy-based rationale for "keep"), so this thread will be closed (or relisted at an administrator's discretion) after a minimum of seven days from nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Seems to meet the General notability guidelines - the first citation seems to be from an author with a PHD in church history from Berkeley, which feels solid. Second seems like a book too, if we are assuming good faith too, I’m inclined to allow it on the “sources don’t need to be available online” standard. Final citation is East Bay express which is a legit journalism source. Even without the middle sources, which may or may not be independent (I’m not sure how independent an individual church is from a faith based news service as a whole), it passes muster, AND i would assume with a church of that age, built into a community for that long, that there are going to be other offline sources we can’t easily find online, which meets the “consider whether there are likely be be other sources offline you don’t know about” criteria.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it covers an existing and noteworthy subject which meets criterion for qualifying for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeplot (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new section was added on the notability of this congregation in its unique and pioneering commitment to ecotheology. This deletion thread should be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - fails my standards for historic churches; its current rector is notable, but I require two or more notable congregants to make it notable. A redirect is a good compromise. For what it’s worth, I am an Episcopalian and had my conversion experience in that diocese. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Dimitrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I see no reason that this would pass WP:GNG, as was decided at it's last deletion discussion. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no dated contributions since the last AfD with a quite weak assertion of notability here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails my standards for lawyers, as well as WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  out of interest, what are your standards for lawyers?

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent secondary sources in the article. Can’t find any via google. Fails notability.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings of Southeast Asia Startups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, or possibly WP:NLIST given how the article is set up. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Incomprehensible. —Tamfang (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find anything that would really make any sense in an article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

General failure to demonstrate notability. Article purely sourced from its own website and then International (CWI) (WP:ABOUTSELF violation). Attempt to find reliable sources showed no notable coverage in terms of news coverage. Some results appear on Google Scholar but from those I was able to access in English there are few mentions and those appeared trivial and more to do with outside organisations such as SYRIZA.

Article has been appropriately maintenance tagged for several years now yet improvement has not appeared.

Given that the International they are now affiliated to is non-notable (International Standpoint) there looks to be no obvious redirect target, so proposing deletion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -I'm wondering if someone cam look for Greek-language reliable sources? The organization has been around for 50 years and was once part of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) so there may be something out there. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the Greek sources I have looked at, there is nothing worthwhile. Although the party is old, it has never been influential outside its own area, so there is not enough coverage. A mention by name here is enough, i think. So Delete. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Dortch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. No evidence. No indication of significance.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Chancer. scope_creep^Talk 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or otherwise merge: This article seems like significant coverage in a reliable source to me. There's an interview in a town tourism website, which may or may not be usable. Here is another interview on a radio show. This is a third interview that appears to be by a children's museum.

Also, according to NARTIST, there is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work", so if the mural he helped paint was notable, then he may pass it. For coverage of the mural, see:

• https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/08/01/indianapolis-black-lives-matter-mural-painted-indiana-avenue/5562886002/
• https://www.wrtv.com/news/america-in-crisis/black-lives-matter-mural-coming-to-indiana-avenue
• https://www.indianapolismonthly.com/news-and-opinion/indiana-avenue-becomes-black-lives-matter-mural
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/chaddscott/2020/11/13/indianapolis-preserving-and-presenting-its-activist-art-from-the-tumultous-summer-of-2020/
• The Wikipedia article on the mural itself

So, the real question is, can he be adequately covered in the main mural article (probably not if it is desired to keep the Solful Gardens content), and, does painting 1/18th of something count as a major role (it probably does). Mrfoogles (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said it is a little bit on the line, so it wouldn't be that bad to merge unless there are more notable works he played a major role in or something. Given most of the other artists on the mural have articles, though, there might be an advantage in consistency. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is terrible, its is promotional, talks about gardening and purports to be about an artist when its not. Its immense trash. There is no references. Those references above don't pass WP:THREE. There is no secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 23:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON currently fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO. The Black Lives Matter street mural (Indianapolis) was created by 18 artists, so a redirect is not appropriate, in my opinion. That some of the other artists have marginal or delete-able articles falls under WP:WHATABOUT. Source assessment table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indyarts.org/			Home page of Indy Arts Council no mention of Jarrod Dortch	✘ No
https://farmflavor.com/indiana/solful-gardens-offers-community-a-new-source-for-fresh-produce/			Nice write up about his farm Solful Gardens Offers Community a New Source for Fresh Produce	✘ No
https://discovernewfields.org/newsroom/jarrod-dortch-local-legend	?	?	interview	✘ No
https://www.gregoryappel.com/generations/			no mention of Jarrod Dortc	✘ No
https://www.mixcloud.com/WQRT_Indianapolis/who-are-you-and-what-do-you-want-jarrod-dortch/	?	?	recorded interview on local station WQRT Indianapolis	✘ No
https://indyarts.org/			Home page of Indy Arts Council no mention of Jarrod Dortch	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKonRhfm1v8	?	?	local interview Newfields: A Place for Nature & the Arts.	✘ No
https://dmr.bsu.edu/digital/collection/BSUCmncPrg/id/7072/rec/8		?	2016 Ball State University winter commencement program and graduate roster	✘ No
https://butterartfair.com/butter-at-indys-home-court-artists-2/	?	?	? broken link	? Unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVlnyMzI4s			Interview on local The Children's Museum of Indianapolis YouTube	✘ 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, Sources do not seem sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I'm rather torn on this one. I tried to find more sources and did some editing of the article but I just can't find enough sources to support an article. Also, some of the personal details in the article cannot be verified. Most of what I find is write-ups of him in publicity about art shows, and those cannot be considered independent. I do consider the article on his garden to be solid, differing from the above analysis of sources. I think he's close to being notable, but not yet. Lamona (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Myrgorodskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE advert. Gas man No indication of significance. Refs are press-release, profiles, passing mentions, and x of y articles. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutwalibi Mugolofa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG. There is no evidence of any appearance in any league match or appearance in international matches. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uganda. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Kampala Capital City Authority FC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-Line Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage of the term; article at present is a dictionary definition. C F A 💬 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Taiwan. C F A 💬 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A term for Wiktionary. While there are plenty of locations nicknamed 一线天 or similar, I found no coverage on the general concept. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This also runs afoul of WP:DAB, as none of the three articles listed mention "one-line sky". Toadspike [Talk] 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Sleeping (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, which has proven entirely unverifiable, while this piece in Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive or GNG-building coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or inaccurate problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Robert Adetuyi#Career: where it is simply mentioned, and merge content about genre (+simplified plot), cast, date, etc; and sources. Not opposed to Keep, given the existing coverage (and the film seems to have been released; review.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) and in light of the reviews identified by Donaldd23, at least. (The 3 reviews show the film was released in 2022 and is therefore considered a 2022 film). Thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in addition to the review listed above my Mushy Yank, there are these reviews [5] and [6] . And the question of it being released or not is answered by the fact it is streaming on Tubi [7] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Heyuguys" nor "This Is Film" are reliable sources of GNG-building film reviews at all — film reviews have to come from reputable and established publications to build a film's notability, not just any random WordPress blogger that you can find on the internet. And while AIPT is better, it isn't enough to vault a film over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy review that can be found. And I didn't question that the film has been released, but we've got three conflicting claims about when it was released with no fully satisfactory resolution to the matter of whether it belongs in Category:2015 films, Category:2018 films or Category:2022 films — of which it must be in one of those three, with absolutely no leeway for any "then just don't categorize it for year of release at all" opt-outs, so we can't just handwave that away as a non-issue. "Has been released" is not an instant notability freebie at WP:NFILM in and of itself — even a film that has been released still has to pass GNG on proper reliable source coverage about it, and can't park its notability on blogs or primary sources just because it's available for streaming somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looking at the sources currently in the article there is borderline notability. Online I have also found quite a bit that can also contribute towards WP:GNG ([8][9][10][11]). I will add what I can to the article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. Star Mississippi 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

  Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

  It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

  Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

  Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boutxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I tried to PROD this, but it was removed, so I figure this is the next best place. I see no notability, though some sources do exist. The bear is just another poaching victim, which is unfortunate, but should really be included in a different article, perhaps one about the decline of brown bears in the Pyrenees. The references that are used all redirect to the article for some reason, as well. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Kingsmasher678: This article is translated from the French Wikipedia where the references are working: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutxy @Insillaciv: have you checked out Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia yet? It's allowed and encouraged to translate from the other language Wikipedias. The Creative Commons license requires attribution; it's often done with an edit summary when starting a translation. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The references are really more of a nitpick than anything, my issue comes from the notability side of things. I would argue that the sources I can access, which is only the news articles for some reason, even in the french article, simply don't show a reason for this article.

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the French sources don't show notability, then delete. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - much as I dislike the draft system, this is potentially a valid article IMO if the references can be fixed (the reports for example are available elsewhere on the internet even though the fr-Wiki links do indeed seem to be broken), which I'm willing to attempt but don't have time to do at this exact moment. I don't agree in any case that there is no notability here, largely because the number of these bears is tiny (about 14-15 of them), and each one is named, known and followed, so individual bears often have an unusually high profile. Anyway, please draftify and I'll see if I can work it up - nothing lost if I can't. Ingratis (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) In co-operation with the creator Insillaciv, obvs, if he/she/they is still around - not intending to cut them out.Ingratis (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Aum (unit)

Keel (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage of the unit; article at present is a dictionary definition. C F A 💬 20:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 20:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Keelboat in the section Keelboat#In_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. I didn't find any sources for this measure, but there is quite a bit about keelboats and their history. This should fit in with that article. Lamona (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge a single sentence? C F A 💬 00:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, even for just a single sentence is fine. Then change this page to a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Kick channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [12] [13] [14]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-followed Twitch channels & List of most-followed TikTok accounts, so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists, this list serves a valuable purpose by documenting significant trends in an evident and impactful space. Claims that the list is “unmaintainable” due to dynamic follower numbers are not strong enough for deletion. Other Wikipedia pages regularly update stats like revenue, sales figures, or most-followed accounts, and the content remains relevant despite being dynamic. As a growing platform, Kick has generated significant media attention, and reliable sources regularly cover its top streamers. Listing the top 30 most-followed channels does not represent an indiscriminate collection of information; it focuses on the most popular accounts on one of the newest major streaming platforms, essential for cultural and media studies. The argument that Kick's controversies are the only notability factor ignores the clear public interest in tracking which creators hold the most followers. I agree that it needs better citations, but that will be fixed with time. I know that editors, including myself, will maintain and update this list as needed. A note about the last update date should address concerns about outdated information. Deleting this list would limit Wikipedia’s ability to document the evolution of social media platforms, especially those rising in relevance like Kick.JeanSegura (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally, we do not make deletion decisions based on what other lists (or articles) exist or do not exist on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that we're looking at this list's notability, not the notability of those other lists; those lists might be notable, or they might not, but the focus of this discussion is just this list. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand and agree with you that each list’s notability should be considered individually. However, it's important to note that this list meets the same standards as similar lists, which is why it meets the inclusion criteria based on its own notability. You will find media online that covers kick followers, just as it does for other platforms. Reliable sources such as "NBC News" have show their follower counts and impact. I really think that the notability of this list is okay, as the list is not merely about individual creators but about Kick's social impact. JeanSegura (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Kim Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. No indication of significance. Refs are passing, press-releases, paid PR and puff pieces. scope_creep^Talk 19:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daiki Goto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. In 5 years, he has played 14 matches in the third league of Japan. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Choong-hyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Already notability-tagged for three years, so it's time for a discussion to decide. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tae-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 361 minutes in China and in a couple of lower leagues. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Transfermarkt notes that he has one assist and zero goals in six games. If we add to that the few independent sources on the subject that talk about the player, I fail to see the relevance. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Bong-seong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 18 times in Singapore and made no other mark on the sport. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Osmani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 63 minutes in Austria’s second highest league, as well as some games in Albania’s second tier, Austria’s third tier and Germany’s fourth tier. I can't find any significant coverage, only articles about an accused criminal of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Progressive Youth Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Google scholar has no sources and neither does the Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG, I was only able to find passing mentions in Bianet. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 18:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - again, lack of references is not on its own a criteria for deletion. The article as it exist right now doesn't fully explain the nature of the group. TÜM-İGD is the youth wing of the TKP (1920) (ex Ürün Sosyalist Dergi [tr], one of the main remnants of the old Communist Party of Turkey and as such, unrelated to the current Communist Party of Turkey). It's a nationwide movement, that is notable in its own right. I note material on 2012 May Day, 2010 YÖK action (the Bianet coverage mentioned above would have been for https://bianet.org/haber/students-take-the-streets-on-30th-anniversary-of-yok-133750 for 2011 protest presumably). Here coverage in Yeni Dünya, here coverage on 2006 protests in Hurriyet, Evrensel, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, Yeni Safak, etc, etc. Most of coverage is coverage on various protests of the group over the past years. --Soman (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete / merge - There is a much better written page for Progressive Youth Association, which I take to be the same organisation given that one of the the best links given by Soman is to the same organisation magazine for both. There seems to be the perennial problem of that source not being independent, but it seems likely that Soman or another editor might be able to fix that if they do their best to search out independent news sources in Turkish which would be more difficult for us non-Turkish speakers. With an organisation of this age I have to believe that they exist, and as Soman says, the criteria is that sources exist, not that they are cited currently in an article. I see no point keeping this clearly inferior article though, when a better one on the same topic exists.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Kahlenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP that reads like an organisation article. Lots of interview and profiles, passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I am the one who created the article. I have no financial relationship with the subject 66.112.246.20 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Atidna (following AfD discussion). The article does read a bit WP:PROMO on the organization and could be trimmed, and coverage on Kahlenberg is in the context of coverage about Atidna. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG nonetheless. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: How is the organisation notable. It was created in 2002 and there is virtually no coverage on it, outside a few interviews with Kahlenberg. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It was created in 2022 actually and has over 30 interviews from different sources including from Al Jazeera, CNN, NPR, ABC News, Axios, etc listed. Quick search shows there are even more not even mentioned on the page. This meets notable standards. I say keep and rename, although the article is lengthy. It is probably better to split into two articles, one about Kahlenberg and one about Atidna. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chocamine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources don't establish notability, can't find any that do. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: [15], [16], it's got some coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published book and a mention in a directory? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Though most of the sources are dead, there are actually sources outside of the article which add to the notability, as said as the other editor, but the position wasn't installed properly. Sources include RFi, Noottropicsdepot, a small brand, Prolab, another brand, and the Great Green Wall, an african organization which has its own page. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of the newly mentioned ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all ads, except for the last one. That is functionally a blog, by a non-expert, whose accreditation is that he has been "interested in supplements... for over 10 years". The wiki page for Great Green Wall is unrelated (as it's about planting trees to prevent desertification). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rollinginhisgrave, there are two editors who disagree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I didn't want to bludgeon. Just responded after it was relisted for a source analysis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I can’t find any independent secondary sources out there. The ones given in the article are all product info, and both normal google and google scholar throw up nothing (except an unrelated artisanal chocolate maker of the same name). So I don’t think it passes WP:GNG, but…. As or more importantly, as far as I can tell this article is SYNTH, especially the history section, and WP:OR, and should be deleted on those grounds alone.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find sources to establish that this meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lack references to establish their notability Tesleemah (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Anne Asher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page appears to fail WP:N, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:BIO for equestrians, not notable, few RS on this individual to warrant encyclopedic entry, listing existence could be seen as promotional for this person's business. The events that are described in this person's bio: FEI North American Continental Championships in 2014, 2015 and 2017,silver medal during the Championships in 2017 and won all U25 classes --are not the highest level of international competition and many individuals could have listings here. Maybe this competitor will become an international level performer but is not currently. Nayyn (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meet [[WP:Notable]] as quoted from the page "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"Tesleemah 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What of these wins is considered "a significant honor"? None of these are at international level.

Re:The concept of significant honour is not clearly stated, they Afterall won a national award and some Olympics Tesleemah 08:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did not go to the Olympics Nayyn (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Acres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deletion as per no wp:rs, unclear notability via reliable sources, page appears to be promotional for real estate listing Nayyn (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiger handhelds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Neither reliable nor notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Regarding reliability, the list is sourced to a single article on what's essentially a blog, and the author's source is "This is the most comprehensive list of Tiger Electronics Handheld games that I could assemble from scouring the internet." This is fine for a blog, but this is absolutely not in any way acceptable as the sole source for a Wikipedia list article. Regarding notability, there's no evidence that these handhelds have notability as a group per WP:NLIST, let alone that any of them are individually notable.

The prose of this article could be reduced to the literal string 'https://www.geekyhobbies.com/tiger-electronic-handheld-games/' with nothing else, and it would have the same effect except that you would have to follow a link; it does not belong on Wikipedia in its current form, and I don't see a way forward for it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some games on the list are notable, but the article itself is just a disorganized compilation, based on a single source. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Nakhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

can't find GNG, has a series of random page moves and it seems like this could be better off merged with Nakh peoples article if the obvious LLM doesn't cause an issue — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have sources , here is it: https://snifferip.com/chechen_history.pdf

Its the «Jaimoukha amjad The chechens» Book NakhBoy (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only use of the term I could find was a single mention in Jaimoukha, Amjad. The Chechens: A Handbook. London: Routledge, 2005. but that is not enough to support an article. Instead use the listed sources to add sourced material to Nakh peoples#History or other existing articles on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torontow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has played the title character in Sweeney Todd, among other major characters and has been nominated for Dora Awards both as a leading actor and a director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems notable enough to me, given his stage career and existing sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per @Ssilvers. Subject appeared in various plays have sources which support them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Zainab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No new notability since last two deletions. — Moriwen (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. — Moriwen (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment well I think having a 43 year career isn't considered notable by Wikipedia now huh? Dorothy Schnapp (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep clearly a notable subject, she had a lead role in Taufan (1952) and a few supporting roles in notable Indonesian and Singapore films. The obstacle of this article it's just the source that must be translated to English and also a little extra work on searching Dorothy Schnapp (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 'Zainab' who plays the lead role in Taufan (1952) is actually Zainab Samallo, a different actress from that era. Proofs can be found in the IMDb or Indonesia film center. Also, it seems all of Zainab Samallo's films have been incorrectly included in Siti Zainab's filmography, which further calls into question the actual notability of Siti Zainab. Ckfasdf (talk)

• Delete The article is a recreation of a previous version that was deleted following a deletion discussion (in fact there were 2 deletion discussions). There are no significant changes compared to the original article. Therefore, it should qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion WP:G4. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, it shouls also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, to prevent recreation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ruiz II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to have gained notability since previous deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. — Moriwen (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page merits retention due to several key factors demonstrating Ruiz's significance and notability.

Comparable Wikipedia Entries: Many individuals who have held comparable or similar positions as Chief of Staff, including Allie Bones and Jack LaSota, maintain active Wikipedia pages.

Both of these individuals have pages with far less detail regarding their accomplishments or their impact on public policy. This sets a clear precedent for retaining the page for Ruiz, who has had an equally, if not more, significant role in Arizona's political landscape.

Historical and Cultural Significance: Daniel Ruiz II holds the distinction of being the first Latino to serve as Chief of Staff to an Arizona Governor. This alone represents a noteworthy milestone in Arizona’s political history, reflecting the increasing diversity in state leadership roles and making Ruiz a pioneering figure in the Latino community. His tenure in this high-profile position is emblematic of broader societal changes and deserves recognition for its historic value.

Impact and Influence: As noted on the page and in news sources, during his tenure, Ruiz oversaw critical initiatives under Governor Doug Ducey’s administration, playing a central role in shaping policy decisions and managing key aspects of state governance. His influence extended beyond the day-to-day operations of the Governor's office, as Chief of Staff is a role vital to executing state policy and managing crisis responses. His leadership, particularly in a state as politically dynamic as Arizona, underscores the importance of documenting his contributions.

Broader Media Recognition: As noted in the specific citations from reliable sources provided, Daniel Ruiz II has been the subject of media coverage related to his role in shaping Arizona's policies. His involvement in major state initiatives, including economic development and crisis management, has brought him into the public eye.

Daniel Ruiz II is a notable figure both historically and politically. His role as the first Latino Chief of Staff in Arizona and his comparability with other individuals in similar roles who have retained Wikipedia pages underscore his notability. I respectfully request that his page be maintained and preserved as an important documentation of Arizona’s political history. ArizonaArt (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are going to be convinced by ChatGPT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: First hispanic chief of staff is barely notable, the Blue Cross position isn't notable. I don't see what's changed in the three months since last AfD. Sourcing used is simply confirmation of various positions, no different than any other person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Fitzgerald (footballer, born 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles; PROD removed by an IP now blocked as a sock. This is another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - semi-pro footballer who fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The player may become notable in the medium term, but with the precedent of indiscriminate creation by a single contributor, deleting seems fair to me. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – He's a PROFESSIONAL footballer for Sligo and has been for a few years now, I'm Sligo fan and from the references it passes [WP:GNG]] as it's a footballers biography and ALL of the sources are reliable.2A06:5902:180C:5800:39BD:C997:94B6:8E85 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock struck. GiantSnowman 19:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leaving out the fact that the creator of this article had several indiscriminate creations, this player does have a established career and seems notable. He had played in the top tier of Irish football (a fully professinal league) since 2017 with a total of more than 150 games. Furthermore, the player had also appeared and scored in UEFA Europa Conference League qualifiers. I think there should be references to make it passes WP:GNG.

Lâm (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are there? He is an active player, so should be internet news articles about him? GiantSnowman 19:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as an election candidate, fails WP:NBASIC otherwise. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the election is uncontested (Green Party didn't field a nominee) and less than a month away. The position of Shadow Senator is a federal position, equivalent to a senator. There's also a decent amount of coverage already [18][19][20] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying they would meet NPOL if elected, but they don't right now. Routine election coverage of candidates is expected and doesn't really count towards anything. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if they win, but right now they are not notable. C F A 💬 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage is decent as is, what reason is there to get rid of the article of a person who has a 99.9999% chance of being elected into office just before an election? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, a Republican did file and will be on the ballot. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom (lean draftify IMO). I've talked with the page creator about WP:NPOL already, including a bit about how a candidate's article was not put into mainspace until he actually won the election. Right now, on the page, there are four sources, two are routine coverage, one is an endorsement, and one is Wikipedia:BALLOTPEDIA. Searching on Google doesn't yield much that can be added. They don't seem to pass NPOL or WP:GNG until he actually wins the election. reppop^talk 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't be opposed to draftifying the article until November. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia for now. Recreate when he wins in November. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, things happen between now and election day and as of right now Jain remains an unelected private citizen. Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia for now. Recreate after November as/if needed.Djflem (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have arguments to Delete, Draftify, Keep and Redirect this article which, at this point, means that there is no consensus to do any of those actions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Draft or redirect, the election is coming up shortly. Wouldn't be notable if they don't win the election, based on what I'm seeing. Not fussed either way, probably !draft. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay, Konak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged unsourced in 2009 and does not seem to be notable. Konak article exists so maybe this one not needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: See [21], [22] for instance, but even without these, it should be speedily kept based on WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is ‘’semt’’ still a legally recognized subdivision of “ilçe”?Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a "semt" can be informal, but Hatay in İzmir as a city center is well-recognized even if it does not have official boundaries. The Konak municipality has a center there, public transit stations, events, etc... Within the "semt", there are lots of officially recognized "mahalle"s, each of which can have their own articles, according to WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I can create an article about any “mahalle” I like without any sources at all? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Only two sources have been found so far, and as these are both the same publication, they count as one. A moot point as the second source is a passing mention. The first is a little better, suggesting the subject is a large district, but the discussion above suggests that the description is an informal one. Yet if we had multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the locality, the legal status would be irrelevant. I would move to keep if more and better sourcing could be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brosthrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail WP:NSINGER. There is literally nothing to inherently confer that here, and no source to establish WP:GNG. I looked through the sources and all I could find is unreliable PRs and advertorials for a more or less up-and-coming singer-songwriter. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Subject notable with their major 'single' release, also few reliable independent sources mention them in their newspapers. Tesleemah talk 07:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sources aren't great, might be WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Subject is notable as per WP:SINGER. Mevoelo talk 08:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Elo, which criteria does it satisfy? Best, reading beans 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject has received coverage of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country; has a song that gained national recognition; and has even featured several other independent top-rated artists, sources also show notability. Still working on improving the article by adding more sources. Best, Mevoelo (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2023 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails general notability standards (school athletics competitions are not considered notable). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Also proposing:[reply]

Boxing at the 2023 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Athletics at the 2023 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Swimming at the 2023 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Philippines. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no opinion on this particular event but the notion that school athletics competitions are not considered notable is simply not true, see the various NCAA competitions in the United States. Alvaldi (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NCAA is university/college not a secondary school competition. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am simply stating that there are no notability guidelines or official Wikipedia policies that state that school athletics competitions are not considered notable simply because they are school athletics competitions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This is on a level far, far below NCAA. This is smaller children, the coverage of which is not significant. Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to 2023 Palarong Pambansa. The games themselves seem to be getting quite a bit of coverage in the Philippines media[29][30][31][32][33][34] but I'm not convinced the individual events pass the notability guidelines. That said, I think a redirect is a better alternative than deletion in this case. Alvaldi (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]