Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 17	August 19 >

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Axworthy

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

Ambassadors not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO, source 1 merely confirms details from an entry about her husband, sources 2 and 4 are primary. Source 3 is a routine announcement from the Vatican. A search for sources found passing mentions of her as ambassador but not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a cursory search for sources immediately shows up two in-depth articles in The Tablet at [1] and [2] plus lots of lesser stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources cited by Jonathan A Jones and this [[[3]]], which I archived here [[[4]]] because it is paywalled, may meet the minimum of WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, because based on the sources found, this is enough. Bearian (talk),

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. I wish those who had argued for Deletion had returned to review these newly found sources but they didn't. But I don't see the point of relisting this discussion so I'll just close as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egbema tribe

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

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

Withdrawn by nominator - I think these sources brought up are enough to prove notability for a standalone article. I may expand the article myself soon, using open sources (and if anyone has access to The Wikipedia Library, I would appreciate their help expanding the article with sources they can find as well). LR.127 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamaguchi先生, can you take a look now? Best, Reading Beans 06:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although you could redirect it to Ijaw people. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These sources make some mention of this tribe [5][6], there seems to be at least a small room for improvement here. Badbluebus (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this article needs expansion for clarity, there are multiple publications to keep it from being deleted:
- Ike, Eruali Ukachukwu (2009). The People and Culture of the Egbema Kingdom. University of Port Harcourt Press. ISBN 9789789003501.
- Tiemọ, G. O. E. (1968). Egbema-Ịjọ Customs and Traditions. Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan. OCLC 112682.
- Williamson, Kay (1974). Reading and Writing Egbema. OCLC 63300648.
- Onyige, Peter Usutu (1979). The Impact of Mineral Oil Exploitation on Rural Communities in Nigeria: The Case of Ogba/Egbema District (Thesis). University of Birmingham.
- Alagoa, Ebiegberi Joe (2005). A History of the Niger Delta: An Historical Interpretation of Ijo Oral Tradition. University of Michigan. pp. 42–45. ISBN 9789783731455.
- Nnadozie, Emmanuel U. (1995). Oil and Socioeconomic Crisis in Nigeria: A Regional Perspective to the Nigerian Disease and the Rural Sector. Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 44–49. ISBN 9780773442405.

I believe that this could be considered as significant coverage. Best, Reading Beans 06:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The essence of AfD is to determine whether a subject merits a standalone page, which in this case it is clear that Egbema tribe merits one. For God’s sake, AfD is not cleanup and articles shouldn’t be sent to AfD if they are clearly notable. It is also clear that a BEFORE wasn’t done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is clear that Egbema tribe merits [a standalone page]" ... "they are clearly notable" how so?

I find this comment a bit vague, sorry - could you say more? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have to say anything more. AfD is not a place to tell us an article needs more sources; it is a place to determine whether a subject notable or not. You have to read the WP:AFD page to familiarise yourself with what it is about. The Egbema tribe in Nigeria is clear-cut notable ethnic group, you're not a Nigerian and as such you cannot tell. I hate seeing things like this at AfD, it utterly sucks. If an article relies on largely or entirely on a single source then tag it, if it has already been tagged and you come across it, you either fix it yourself or you leave it alone, or with a good faith, ask at a noticeboard for example the talk page of WikiProject Nigeria where you might find users who would be willing to do the work of researching and finding more details. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several pages about the Egbema in one of the papers in the book The Izon of the Niger Delta (Google link for convenience; if you have access to Muse via the Wikipedia Library or otherwise, then the whole book is accessible there). The book The Igbo and the Tradition of Politics also has a paper about "The Political Arrangement of the Egbema Community". Combined with the titles of some of the works given by Reading Beans above, it appears that there is WP:SIGCOV in reliable academic sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see further review (as much as possible with off-internet books) of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RL0919 detailed presentation. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:29, 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 all. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my arguments every other time one of these articles gets nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The first two articles are extensions of named trains however the titles are not reasonable search terms as they are made up by the author "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] [TRAIN NAME]" and not used by any official or reliable sources, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. The content in the articles are mainly a reproduction of the timetable or WP:OR which is either unsuitable for article space entirely or would not require keeping redirects for attribution since its a copy of a different source. The third article is an unnamed train with made up title "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Special" and should be deleted entirely. Jumpytoo Talk 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soliciting more participation here to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I concur with Jumpytoo's rationale. This is much like a directory of trains within a rail timetable, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 24 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. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Didi Zindabad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep- These references [[7]],

[[8]],[[9]] clearly passes WP:GNG.103.102.136.170 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can see the page with Review, I have added many important references. Which is able to pass 100% WP:GNG. User:Nilpriyo (talk) 8:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out which one(s) out of what you added are reliable? I checked the first two from the TOI and both are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on a recent RSN discussion. The bylines are "TOI Entertainment Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources are press releases, so not independent (zee5, editorji, ottplay, timesofindia); have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking (prothomkolkata, tollytales, khabor24x7, calcuttastory); or, although from legitimate news outlets and sometimes having a byline, are almost entirely based on coming-soon promotional materials (eisamay, aajkaal, hindustantimes). The greatest degree of independent analysis beyond a recap of the plot as revealed by promos is a mere two sentences in aajkaal. Searches did not find better sources, so not remotely notable. I'm disinclined in this case to redirect as an WP:ATD because of the extent of promotional editing around Zee Bangla TV series. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 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. Editors think deletion or a merge is unnecessary or misguided as the subject of this article and the proposed target article are two different substances. Other possible merges can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slime (homemade toy)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These seem like entirely different articles to me. This page is specifically about the homemade toy (hence the title), while gunge is about a different substance's use on television. The two substances have different ingredients and properties, and the sources used in the two articles don't overlap. Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Toughpigs, these have different compositions, consistencies, and purposes. However someone on the Talk page pointed out Flubber (material), which does have a greater overlap. Slime (toy), too. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Flubber (material) comparison definitely applies here, since, as Hyphenation Expert pointed out, they seem to essentially be the same thing based on their makeup. However, I think it would probably make more sense to merge that page into this one per WP:COMMONNAME rather than delete since the only accessible reference never calls it "flubber" and, even within the article, it gets called slime more than flubber. Most of that page's information is about the formation and consistency of slime, whereas this one also covers its cultural relevancy, among other things. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:01, 13 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!} 23:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the home-made variant of the stuff listed in the other article. This article is well-sourced, seems fine. Notable with good sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 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!} 23:08, 25 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. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spencer Stephens

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an odd one, the sourcing used is about the criminal charge/conviction, but it's in RS. The Golden Globe nomination makes him notable, but the sourcing is about him, but for another reason. I guess it doesn't really matter, the article isn't about his crime, but about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep based on the numerous articles in RS about his arrest; they do go into detail about his prior acting roles, so they are about this person, but not about his award nomination. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several sources about him though, many are about his arrest, his acting career was also referenced in the headlines. This goes to show that his acting career was notable and I have brought in some sources about his career not the arrest and sentencing. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:16, 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. If anyone wants this content available to do a rewrite and a refocus, let me know and I will draftify for you. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoism

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

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

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

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

An interesting suggestion that I would not be adverse to, but someone would have to rewrite. Lets wait for more comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my opinion about changing it to the book; that would have to be WP:TNT. The book is about Ecologism, which is not Ecoism. This article is about an invention by Hares Youssef, and the book quoted as a source is not appropriate or relevant.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the author of this page seemed to conflate one guy's invention with the idea promoted by the book, which is notable, so it's kind of half half. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 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!} 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a ping to @Oaktree b and Prof.PMarini: in case they want to comment considering the source of Ecoism. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't open those from the link to Proquest above, I've tried using the Wiki Library, but I don't know what the book is called to be able to look up these sources... Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Library search brings up things related to psychology and what seems to be eco-conscious consumers, so I'm not sure how that could help this discussion Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages such as this which talk about ecologism. The topic Ecoism is the invention of Hares Youseff, as stated in this link on the page. Ecologism is an established philosophy, but is not the same as Ecoism from everything I have seen.

The topic Ecologism is different, and since 2006 has been a link to Environmentalism. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have to sort through sources to try and find some that fit, I don't see the notability involved. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with Ldm1954 that Ecologism and Ecoism are different. Ecologism is the better title of an article; though we would still need to WP:TNT this one. The article seems to just introduce the term Ecoism then discuss Ecologism. As noted by PARAKANYAA the article seems to merely conflate Ecologism and Ecoism, in order to lend notability to Ecoism. Ecologism might stand a better chance of having its own article or at least be written as a section under Environmentalism. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:27, 24 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 draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh Jibon

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

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

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

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

Keep: The page have reputed media references. Few media links are Bengali publications that might be semi known. But the film is notable and should be keep at main space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Which references specifically? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for being too soon. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:32, 16 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!} 23:15, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social disorganization theory

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting idea but poorly organized. Can we rescue this one? Bearian (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to allow interested editors to improve. Right now, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG but it seems like other participants see value in rescuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamental component of criminological theory (I am a theoretical criminologist), but I agree the page needs work. This is my first time posting, but I'm happpy to figure out the process and contribute, with appropriate citations and modern-day applications. Rebekahgz (talk) 19:58, 27 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!} 23:14, 18 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!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. The article seems failed WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it pushes away unprepared users. But the theory itself is relevant to everyday life, with RS such as this one and skillful writing, it could be a very interesting piece. I’m not against the suggestion of WP:TNT, though. Nihonjinatny (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give editors time to work on it. It seems notable. Ben Azura (talk) 08:00, 28 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 03:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Tour

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 12 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!} 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (second option Delete). Nothing sources that meet WP:NTOUR that I can search; the IP's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument fials to convince me. But it may be notable in the future. Mach61 23:04, 25 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!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There could not be any significant, in-depth coverage, per WP:GNG, for a tour not yet happened. The topic fails WP:NTOUR, and the article violates WP:NOTPROMO. Nihonjinatny (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 28 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 and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Gold Airways

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it does have some issues with notability, it's hardly a promotion. The proposed airline has been out of business for over a decade, and this article pretty much reflects what information already exists outside of Wikipedia, which has been reported in reliable sources. Unexpectedinquisition (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Comment This is an interesting page I haven't encountered before. The page had been nominated for deletion twice and had been kept. It's the third nomination now. As per the justifications for keeping the page from the first nomination for deletion, the company "has attracted genuine media coverage is itself evidence that it meets WP:CORP" the venture failed, but the company gained significant coverage and notability (notoriety, I might say.) Prof.PMarini (talk) 16:01, 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!} 23:11, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax Community Church

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

A run-of-the-mill large church. No secondary coverage in the article, and none found. Just called "Fairfax Church" now, which makes searching difficult. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Virginia. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no proper notable coverage found in my search online. User:R.schneider101 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 25 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 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Four

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated before for deletion and nothing was decided. There still exists issues on citations and page updates. Google searches of this "conference" offer no notable references or sources. The talk page for the article even indicates discussion back in 2006 on the lack of noatibility amongst the university sport groups. I propose deleting the article. User:R.schneider101 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's a case that doesn't seem to me to have any independent coverage. If it is possible to locate sources that determine some relevance, because as it is a university competition that does not have notability in itself. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svärtinge SK

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier, and it appeared in a preliminary cup round but not the real cup. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contributor892z (talk) 11:39, 25 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 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Söråkers FF

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier for men and the 5th and 6th tier for women. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Ghadir Iron and Steel Company

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

fails WP:CORP, Very ordinary company with nothing special, and no achievements, most of the references are unacceptable: some links from company's website (igisco.ir), some links are company info page in stock websites or profile, some refs are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iran. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability; the available online sources, as mentioned by nominator are either self-published sites, directories or trivial mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:59, 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 DNA Oyj. History is thereunder should someone want to merge sourced material. Star Mississippi 02:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlusTV

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

The page doesn't cite any source, doesn't seem neutral enough, and its notability is uncertain. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DNA Oyj -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DNA Oyj. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per @Mushy Yank; not much encyclopedic or verifiable to merge. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 26 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) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Marri

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

I can't find any evidence of a WP:GNG pass for the footballer of this name. The best that I can find is a press release from his club, which is neither significant nor independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus that there are adequate sources that help establish GNG. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Rizivi

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers.
The attempted notability claim here is an unreferenced list of minor awards from small-fry film festivals whose awards are not instant notability clinchers -- WP:NFILM is looking for Oscars, Canadian Screen Awards, BAFTAs or major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, not just any film festival that exists -- but apart from two hits of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown media (and a New York Times hit that tangentially verifies the existence of a podcast that she was not involved in creating, and thus is not about her in any GNG-contributing sense), this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was at a misspelling of her name: I moved it to Jia Rizvi (as on her website and in other sources), then realised one isn't supposed to move an article during an AfD and moved it back again. So as I type it is at the wrong title. PamD
Note also: most sources refer to her as Jia Wertz, but her own web page uses Rizvi. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there seem to be enough articles about her as film-maker. It was a badly-written article but I've cleaned up some of the problems - use of forename, curly quotes, lack of links, overlinks, etc. PamD 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And bizarre system of reference names too: "one" etc. Have fixed the most-re-used. PamD 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She doesn’t seem to pass WP:NDIRECTOR but the Calgary Herald and GlobalNews profiles are sufficient SIGCOV for this to clear WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She’s won some accolades in smaller film festivals, but not the bigger ones like Cannes (which actually isn’t that difficult to get into). Right now, the sourcing isn’t up to the level we usually expect from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd welcome more participation here and review of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Awards section needs sources. Xegma(talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone else find it odd that someone with no other edits uploaded her photo and arranged for copyright permission to be emailed a few days before another editor began writing this article? Reviewing sources, nothing seems secondary or significant. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still stand by my week keep with at least two sources (and possibly more) constituting WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Did a quick source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/movies/calgary-filmmaker-battles-injustice-with-films-about-wrongfully-convicted	Major daily newspaper of Calgary	Major daily newspaper of Calgary	Significant profile, goes beyond mere interview	✔ Yes
https://globalnews.ca/news/7528263/calgarian-new-york-jeffery-deskovic-documentary/	Major Canadian media outlet	Major Canadian media outlet	Extensive coverage of Rizvi and her work	✔ Yes
https://americankahani.com/perspectives/and-justice-for-all-a-conversation-with-jia-wertz-whos-taking-on-the-american-judicial-system/			Review of Rizvi's film combined with reporting/interview on her career	✔ Yes
https://www.dtmg.co/news/digital-trends-announces-dei-advertising-award-recipients	Press release	Primary source		✘ No
https://gritdaily.com/review-true-crime-documentary-conviction-sheds-light-on-shortcomings-of-the-criminal-justice-system/		?		? Unknown
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://youthrepresent.org/boardofdirectors	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.rbij.org/rbij-blog/justice-champion-spotlight-filmmaker-jia-wertz-wrtc3	Primary source; interview	Primary source; interview		✘ No
https://medium.com/authority-magazine/filmmaker-jia-wertz-the-power-of-flexibility-how-i-was-able-to-pivot-to-a-new-exciting-c566da99c8ec	Primary source; interview	Primary source; interview		✘ No
https://browngirlmagazine.com/jia-wertz-advocates-for-criminal-justice-reform-with-her-documentary-conviction/	? Mostly interview-based	? No byline; unknown reliability		? Unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/media/serial-podcastings-first-breakout-hit-sets-stage-for-more.html			Does not even mention Rizvi	✘ No
https://globedocspresentsconviction.splashthat.com/	Primary source (her film)	Primary source	No coverage; just a link to her film	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jiawertz/		Her own writing is not reliable for coverage of herself		✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.pnw.edu/center-for-justice-and-post-exoneration-assistance-at-purdue-university-northwest/advisory-board/	Primary source official bio		Trivial mention of bio alongside other bios	✘ No
https://www.georgiainnocenceproject.org/general/beneath-the-statistics-the-structural-and-systemic-causes-of-our-wrongful-conviction-problem/		Advocacy organization	Does not even mention Rizvi	✘ 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}}.

Furthermore, the "delete" !votes are not engaging at all with the sources presented or all the potential guidelines of notability. We're not here to determine whether the article was created by a conflicted editor (I bet it was, but that doesn't matter as other editors are fixing it). The quality of film festivals she's gotten into doesn't have bearing on whether WP:GNG is met. I agree that she doesn't pass WP:NDIRECTOR, but the sourcing is clear that she does pass GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an interview with her counts fwiw, but all three are about Conviction more than her. If anything, I think an article about the documentary would be better than an article about her per Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event. jwtmsqeh (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I can see, most of the reliable sources covered her for her efforts in the justice system and the filmmaking is just part of that effort and hard to say it is just single event. Instant History (talk) 06:46, 6 September 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. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [10], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [11], Blavatnik finalist [12], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [13]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [14]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [15] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [16], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [17].
Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.

Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The awards (or near awards) all together come very close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would have expected more independent Google news coverage (so as to satisfy WP:GNG), but I think on net this meets the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 26 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. Per the redirect !votes and Rorschacma's comment, there is doubt about whether redirect is a viable ATD here. Any editor is welcome to create a redirect editorially, and if that happens, it can be discussed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Purcell

AfDs for this article:

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

The article cites two sources, both of them are unreliable. It is solely comprised of a plot summary with no reception. Nothing else was found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters, per WP:ATD. BD2412 T 16:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters - Since the character is already on the character list and and Redirects are cheap, I suppose this could work as a valid WP:ATD. But given that I can find no sources at all that actually devote any real kind of coverage to the character, and the character apparently only appeared in six episodes of a 514 episode series, I honestly have doubts that the character has even the barest amount of notability to even be listed on the series character list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appeared in only 6 out of 514 episodes (per previous AFD) in a 1960s TV series, redlinked actress, too non-notable even for a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. No significant coverage. Not clear that this would even belong on a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE list. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:45, 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 merge‎ to Baybayin. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basahan

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

Just a duplicate article of Baybayin. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philippines. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect to Baybayin per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baybayin (WP:ATD) Rusty 🐈 15:14, 25 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 Morley–Ellenbrook line without prejudice against merger. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Springs East railway station

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

This station is not under construction and there are no plans to begin construction anytime soon. Therefore, there are very few sources for this station, and it can be adequately covered at Morley–Ellenbrook line. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too Morley–Ellenbrook line per nom, we can recreate if they build the station Jumpytoo Talk 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of merging? There is nothing written on this article that is not already on Morley–Ellenbrook line. Steelkamp (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley–Ellenbrook line per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley-Ellenbrook line as there is no content worth keeping; perhaps add a mention on the page for the line? Rusty 🐈 15:12, 25 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) 13:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTS (group)

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

Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the claims in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of the song's existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is, especially given the conflict about whether they were Canadian or American in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the conclusions of the thorough before research by Bearcat. The fact that "In 1997, they released a studio album." is [citation needed] and the studio album isn't even named speaks volumes. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 24 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 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bagín

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability on this young Slovak men's footballer. Search results in news sources only come up with passing mentions and transfer announcements, such as this one, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Notability is not inherited from playing for a big club or league. This might fall under WP:TOOSOON, but consider that AS Trenčín is certainly not well-known outside Slovakia anyway, I don't think there will be any significant coverage in reliable sources of Bagín in the coming years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:52, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NNI News

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable and no sources provided for establishing the general or organizational notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 25 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. Star Mississippi 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Furqan

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

A mayor with not much media coverage. Doesn't seem notable per WP:NPOL. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Furqan is the mayor of a city with over 800,000 people and there are many Hindi language sources; Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Dainik Bhaskar, Jansatta, and Aaj Tak Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 25 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!} 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Microplastic Consumer. Sources are somewhat routine but still offer enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. It's not like he's a losing candidate; he was elected as mayor of a large city. C F A 💬 03:42, 2 September 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 per G3 by Bishonen. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sseruwagi Sinclaire Sebastian

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

Seems to be a hoax at some level. I doubt this person edited/composed for these major films at the age of 5. The page even mentions “his compositions have been uncredited for years”. [1] and [2] are movie databases that aren’t reliable and any other verification is based off IMDb. Nothing I can see justifies keeping. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom - I can only find user-generated sources. I suspect that "He is currently a student of the Lubiri Secondary School." and the date of birth are the only correct things here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Look at users contribution history and previous attempts to create this obvious nonsense article. (I also think this have become a case of WP:NOTHERE.) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:08, 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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 10:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Finland relations

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. The external links provided are primary. No third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost no information about the nominal subject. For example, "While Finland became a member of NATO in 2023, Cyprus has never been a member of NATO": what has that to do with Cyprus–Finland relations? Athel cb (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I had the same question. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has very little to say about this topic, and there are no inline sources provided. If, in the future, the relationship between these countries becomes more established as notable, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the information in this article is already included in Foreign relations of Cyprus and Foreign relations of Finland. Since neither of these articles takes preference as a redirect target, the article is best deleted as a WP:CFORK or a totally unjustified SPINOFF. Without prejudice against future inclusion in WP, if someone finds good sources and information. gidonb (talk)
Harmless but Delete. This is more of a "doesn't earn the space it takes up" delete. Even if every fact in the article were perfectly sourced, there just aren't enough facts to establish that Cyprus-Finland relations are enough of a thing to have their own article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 23 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 Merzak Allouache#Selected filmography. as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a Bicycle

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Nothing to suggest notability. No critical reception from reliable sources whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and France. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually unknown in France, let alone anywhere else. Athel cb (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merzak_Allouache#Selected_filmography: Notable cast, a few reliable websites in French allow verification and contain a rating, so opposed to deletion and redirecting to director is a good altenative to deletion. Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Cycling. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Algeria. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:17, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Langdon

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search under his name and "Anthony Langdon" yielded no sources. I also searched Australian database trove and it only yielded two 1 line mentions of this person. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Racingmanager (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Representing his nation does not guarantee automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National winner, thus pass #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 4 of NMOTORSPORT is not applicable to this case by any stretch of the imagination. Further, this user has since been banned from deletion discussions (ANI decision). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @5225C: But does then their comment count towards the final verdict? They were banned after they made this comment. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's for the closing administrator to decide. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @5225C, do you have a view of the notability of this person? LibStar (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing in the article is almost comically bad. I don't think it's anywhere close to meeting the GNG. I have serious concerns about speedway coverage on Wikipedia. Virtually every article I encounter, whether it's a team, rider, or series, has a complete lack of quality sourcing and generally lacks a credible claim of encyclopaedic significance. Apologies to fans of speedway, but not every sport is actually notable, and it doesn't look like speedway personalities deserve encylopaedic coverage (not that they get any coverage outside of speciality, industry-published outlets). If it were up to me, I'd batch delete every speedway biography written in the last two years. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Just noting you haven't actually cast a !vote here. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 25 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!} 20:19, 1 September 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!} 07:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Pshenychnyuk

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

This is the same sort of case as Vladyslav Kalyn, Yaroslav Kysil and Roman Savchenko (footballer), all recently deleted young Ukrainian footballers with no significant coverage from independent sources. To qualify for an article, there must be multiple instances of significant coverage to pass WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from playing for a notable club or notable league and that pointing out that other non-notable players also have articles is not a relevant reason to keep. WP:NSPORTS2022 confirms that the cameo appearances for Chornomorets are not sufficient for notability under current consensus. The references included are trivial; UA Football is a mere squad list mention and Sport.ua is likewise just as bad. Likewise, I found Sport Arena, a trivial mention in the match report and goal listing at the bottom, and Rivne, which lists him in the U19 squad list and mentions him once further in the prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion it's not true if we talk about the recently deleted article Roman Savchenko (footballer), cause there is a reference which imho provides WP:SIGCOV. The same is about the recently deleted article Vladyslav Kalyn ... the article imho has references which also provide WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore Vladyslav Kalyn as player provides enough notability ... he is a ukrainian youth international (U17 and U18), and the facts have been backed by the appropriate references in the article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...cameo appearances for Chornomorets..."

What about constant presence in the youth national team (U17, U18) ? I mean Vladyslav Kalyn. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth football appearances have never conferred notability, even prior to WP:NSPORTS2022 they were considered inadequate in the absence of WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has made very clear, citing multiple policy pages, that run directly counter to your opinions about why this article is notable. I strongly suggest reading those pages and making note of what actually defines a subject's notability. Appearances for youth national teams do not count and neither do appearances for a professional team—see the somewhat recent changes at WP:NSPORTS2022. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no decent sources at all per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider SALT to protect the page permanently from further re-creation. If anyone could find similar articles of sportspeople from any country, I have no prejudice against nominating them for deletion. @Spiderone: I was wondering... Is there any article of such youth athletes at the moment that pass WP:GNG? It seems quite unfair since almost no media cover significant coverage of them. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of young footballers that meet GNG. Nestory Irankunda and Claudio Echeverri are both the same age as Pshenychnyuk but have achieved way more coverage than him and therefore pass GNG. Age is not the issue, it's simply just the fact that not every professional footballer warrants an article because, simply put, nobody has cared enough to write at length about Pshenychnyuk yet. He may well become notable in the future but he may also disappear into obscurity like tens of thousands of others. It's not our job as editors to predict who will be notable so we are best waiting until they get big coverage like Irankunda, Lamine Yamal etc. before creating an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why this protection (=SALT)? Especially if in the meantime the player develops, has a good career, gets media exposure and deserves a wikipedia article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT—This is a repeated thing we keep seeing. The editor who created this article and several others has not been following WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG standards, and this article is a good example of how that is a problem. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to Spiderone's point, it is indeed possible for a young footballer of this age to have sustained coverage if they are notable (fun bit of trivia, I have shared a football field with Irankunda on many occasion!). Pshenychnyuk does not reach that threshold of coverage and therefore doesn't meet the notability standards required by Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 19:14, 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 Slovakia–United Kingdom relations which preserves the history if there's desire to merge sourced information Star Mississippi 12:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations. Both articles are short and the target is helped by the source. Why wasn't this ATD proposed upfront? gidonb (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gidonb. I'm not sure why these articles persist in being nominated at AfD when the can and should be merged and/or redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLAR: An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. Given you and the over AfD participant seem to prefer merging over redirecting, sending this to AfD seems to me like the right call. Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge because the target article has zero secondary sources, no encyclopedic content and should be deleted. No secondary sources at this page either. By the way, AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss merging or redirecting. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Merge this article but now there is opposition to that closure so I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get to a consensus. Would folks accept a Redirect instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Important article about a notable building in Bratislava. Cantab12 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet a notability guideline? Where are the sources to back your claims? LibStar (talk) 09:07, 26 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!} 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations, or just redirect. There is very little content. Slovakia–United Kingdom relations is a notable topic so there is no reason to delete it. AfD is appropriate for redirecting, but merging should be discussed at WP:PM. C F A 💬 16:16, 31 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. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rudoy

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 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 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!} 09:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attempted a more thorough search, got nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 27 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 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Zougam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Delete the person. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 25 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 Nordic race. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Nordic race

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

The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). We already have Nordic race and that seems enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not needed as standalone article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into Nordic race as an ATD. Appears not to meet WP:NFRINGE, but it's at least a viable search term. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 23 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!} 06:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Race theorists of this era should be assumed unreliable per nom.Ben Azura (talk) 08:28, 28 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 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Madrid train bombings suspects

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate to the main article. There's not really any reason for this to be a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 26 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. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rowley (disambiguation)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's definitely a primary topic, but 3 other entries readers may be looking for, and this page then might be WP:USEFUL for them. All 3 entries meet MOS:DABMENTION or have an article, and there is also a valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 17 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!} 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boleyn. This potentially helps the reader. BD2412 T 16:46, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

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

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ([18] [19] [20] [21], not WP:SIGCOV.

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 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 Peace Action#Grassroots work. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Peace Action Network

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

Is not WP:NOTABLE. Within the article, there are no reliable, independent sources listed. Until they are found (if they exist), the article should not exist on Wikipedia. AEagleLionThing (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace Action. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace_Action#Grassroots_work where there is a mention of SPAN. SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace_Action#Grassroots_work, where, as SilkTork points out, the subject is mentioned. Sal2100 (talk) 14:52, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magaya Corporation

(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 02:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Florida. BD2412 T 02:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything. Even if there was something, TNT would apply. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but press releases and company web sites. - Donald Albury 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the refs are notability lending (including the off-web note "Binder, an app that adds photos to Magaya transactions"). Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:37, 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. Since the editor who placed the UPE tag on this article is now supporting Keeping it, I tend to weigh that in favor of this article. The nominator didn't help his case with a nomination statement that wasn't specific to this article with an assessment on its content and sources and which was copied and pasted on other AFDs. The whole deletion rationale rests on the undesirability of UPE but that doesn't seem to be a problem to the participants here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lucas (playwright)

(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 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having that tag on the article isn't a valid reason to delete. Also, the editor who added that paid tag years ago didn't give any proof or an explanation for why it was added, so I'm not even sure it should be on the article. Instead, for an AfD we are concerned with notability and for that the subject easily passes. In addition to the citations already in the article, there are a ton more out there, including a long list of citations on the article's talk page. Add in all the additional notable citations for this author in places like The Herald (link), American Theater (link), and WBUR (link), along with coverage of his plays in Playbill (link) and many other places, and this playwright easily meets our notability guidlines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always ask. @Smartse: what led you to add the UPE tag to this article, and do you think that still applies? BD2412 T 00:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_114#user:Pklucas. The article was written by an editor who created several promotional articles for which I blocked them, and shortly after this article was created, an account claiming to be subject appeared and made several changes. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the article's subject made edits to his article. That said, I'm still not sure why the article was tagged with a paid contributor tag. Probably just a mix-up with the tags years ago. Thanks for dealing with the conflict of interest back then.SouthernNights (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged notability on this ages ago (2017) when I was copyediting the article. The playwright only performed at a large festival (Edinburgh Fringe) that has hundreds maybe thousands of different acts, so that in itself isn't particularly notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would probably tag "autobio" since it seems to come from someone representing the person himself. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References provided by SouthernNights are sufficient to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. AFD isn't clean up and any remaining problems can be dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hodara

(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 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles can be cleaned up. How does Hodera score under PROF? gidonb (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb: Articles can be cleaned up, but one sitting there with a UPE tag for seven years suggests that it will not be cleaned up. Therefore, the subject's PROF score is irrelevant, because it is better to have a red link that might prompt natural creation of an article rather than indefinitely continuing to host content that violates Wikipedia's TOS. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to clean the article up if the PROF score justifies it. Patiently waiting for the answer to my question. Rest assured that I had read the intro and had taken it into full account before writing my comment. gidonb (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: See analysis by David Eppstein below. BD2412 T 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any evidence of heavily cited works that could pass WP:PROF#C1, and although the article lists many books I found only two reviews of one of them [22] [23], not enough for WP:AUTHOR. The article lists nothing else that suggests notability. So although there is visible evidence of UPE in the form of the block log of the article creator rather than (as so often) merely the unsubstantiated opinion of the nominator, I think we can delete on the basis of notability alone without considering the UPE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: Just to clarify, when you say "merely the unsubstantiated opinion of the nominator", you are referring to AfD nominators generally, and not me specifically, yes? BD2412 T 20:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. I was intending to hold you up as a positive example, of someone whose accusations of UPE can be substantiated, unlike those other examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, much appreciated. BD2412 T 21:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’ve reviewed and cleaned up many biography articles recently, and nearly every second article has one or two tags regarding sourcing, promotional tone, and so on. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for deletion. This specific article doesn’t read as promotional in its current form. The COI tag states, "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view," but this article appears to have already been cleaned up, so I believe the tag can be removed. Whizkin (talk) 08:57, 24 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. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kennedy (speedway rider)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the sourcing presented, as to if it's significant or not. Late sentiment has been to keep but further input would be great to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added three of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:31, 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.