Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 12	July 14 >

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if even one Wikipedian volunteers to do the legwork. I took under ten minutes and hit up Google and Google Scholar. I found several sources that look promising and linked to them on the article talk page here: [1]. I have not perused any of these sources in detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them aren't usable, but I'm satisfied enough that enough reliable sourcing to justify an article on this topic exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are either additional recitations of the same definition that do not address WP:NOTDICT or are WP:TRIVIALMENTION that do not address WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those secondary sources is about the Special Security Office. The Rise of the Mavericks book is only about the Air Force branch. Say ocean again (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to classified information in the United States. Fails WP:ORG. There's no inherited notability for being related to multiple arms of the US government. Say ocean again (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Figure Eight Inc.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also worth redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. The page was created in contradiction to WP:INHERENT. Lukas Biewald has no WP:WISC about him as a person; the sources [2] and [3] cited in the article address the company, not the individual. No more significant coverage about Lukas is available besides primary social media sourcing. Silvymaro (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naše novine

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

It existed, but I couldn't find sources to add confirming it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree fully with what @Boleyn: said. Боки ☎ ✎ 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per intro. cmt. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Dorta

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

Article about not notable lawyer. Note- Article was created by the subject. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a lawyer, no different of a career than any other thousands of such people across the country. Nothing notable that i can see... Went to school, graduated and works as a lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. No secondary sources are present discussing the subject in depth. Let'srun (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 04:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Bukit Bandaraya

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG; no significant coverage on the school. N niyaz (talk) 12:06, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried to PROD the article but since it was classified as AfD before I couldn't. Isn't the lack of any user to defend the article explaining that it lacks notability? (Addition) I also just looked at the first nomination, it seems that it is a conversation between two sockpuppets. Could an admin check it out? N niyaz (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^talk 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of star systems within 20–25 light-years

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Administrator note The previous nomination was an April Fool's joke, so I am removing the "previous AFDs" box. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these could be consolidated a bit, perhaps in 10 ly segments rather than 5, but this seems like a valid navigational and informational list; most of the stars have their own articles and there's good data and sourcing in the tables, so this is not just a directory. It's a key component of Lists of stars. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced info, focusing on what is most relevant to the denizens of Planet Earth rather than on every solar object show these list articles are clearly not a directory of everything in the universe. I can think of better ways to organize the information, but that's clearly an editorial decision rather than a NOT issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listing all the star systems in one list would be too long, so this is a logical way to divide them. Valid encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fits WP:LISTPURP and is a useful navigational source for nearby stars and star systems. Procyon117 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all that is what encyclopedias are for, still would like if the segments were by 10 ly Teixant (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All these lists are very useful, provide navigation into pages and have valuable information, hence satisfy the purpose of a list. Don't see any violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY here, it would be a violation if we were listing all stars up to thousands of light-years e.g. List of star systems within 5,000–5,500 light-years, which is not the case.

21 Andromedae (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the number of stars on each page should increase roughly with the cube of the distance, so the later lists are clearly incomplete. A cut-off mark for building these lists is lacking; the local neighborhood of the Sun is variously defined from 12 pc out to 2 kpc, so these could extend our quite a ways. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:snow. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as they don't inherently fall into WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ships & Space_(Edits) 22:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Star Mississippi 12:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Immortals

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Sources in the article are primary and/or affiliated. Does not turn up any news media coverage in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to USA Rugby League#New England Immortals. Mn1548 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - it looks like this could perhaps have been WP:BLARed rather than being brought to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill I thought it had been PROD'd but maybe I misread the history. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG and fails to pass WP:FORUM. While this topic may be interesting to certain individuals (such as the author who made the page), it does not have secondary sources that cover it as an activity. I couldn't find anything on the subject besides primary sources which are all original research.

Silvymaro (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Suzerain (video game). Owen× ☎ 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Rayne

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

Redirect undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you nominated me for the deletion of my post about a video game character named Anton Rayne. We cannot have coverage of too many sources when the character is only text-based. I did an undone redirect since I find it unfair that the character cannot have a wiki. The source used was mostly from the game's codex (which you can read in-game this is just an online version) and their developers so it is a reliable source, site from Torpor Games themselves(https://codex.torporgames.com/). All information on the character is really what games tell you about him and nothing added more. I really find it unfair since Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary of everything not just important characters. This character is a community loved one as are all others. I saw the complaints and comparisons to nazism. I of course dont justify it, it is probably a "Suzerain" fan like me.

I am looking foward to a response, Andrew(AntonRad) AntonRad (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community reception towards a character is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, as we are not a fandom site. Video game characters (or anything, for that matter) generally only get articles if there is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I understand if you might be frustrated or find it unfair that your article was nominated for deletion, but this has been the widely accepted standard for a long time. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree we need to look at the characters objectively and writing Anton like that needs info mostly from the games codex which i did, but i struggle to understand that Anton Rayne was mentioned in suzerain video game wiki and its not ok to write a short article about the games protagonist?

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suzerain (video game): Redirect to the game, I don't find critical discussion of the character in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate you concern about redirection and the characters media popularity, but this was made just for those who did read Suzerain video game article to click on Anton Rayne and find out about him with more information about the games protagonist, but thanks for the comment

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. The article creator seems to completely misunderstand what an average article for a video game character is supposed to be, and that Wikipedia is not a fandom site. Seeing the nomination get compared to Nazism made my day, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I hope i didnt do too bad to be honest. I didnt want it to be seen as a fandom page, as i wanted it to be mostly from games codex. Anton Rayne is mentioned in Suzerain wiki page and i thought it would be good to create one for the protagonist.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Nonsense article. No indication of notability at all. Mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne; the rest was obviously AI-generated. C F A 💬 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

thank you for the comment. You are not right in the first part its not mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne since that is not that much of a reliable source, side from the characters codex, whats mostly copied from is the characters codex in game which can be found on Torpors website! As for this the "rest was obviously AI-generated" AI doesnt even know to write about Suzerain i think, but i ll give it to ya the section for Antons policies really looks AI.

Best, Andrew. AntonRad (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination fails BEFORE; a check of Google News shows a piece in PC Gamer with an in-depth review of the game explaining this character. There are other hits, not an overwhelming number and some of them look iffy, but clearly not zero easy-to-find RS coverage. We know from Commander Shepard that it's possible to write an article about the role a player assumes in an RPG game, so really, the proper assertion here should be that there's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, aside from the game, not that no coverage exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i appreciate your honesty and i do agree to you to some point. Since it Anton Rayne is mentioned in suzerain wiki article i think it was ok to make one about him. There's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, which is true to be fair but that's exactly why i wrote it from the players perspective, since player does everything Anton does in Suzerain.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suzerain (video game) - What sources there are specifically on this character are not enough to justify a split from the main topic of the game. The source found by Jclemens can be added to the main game article, which needs to have its reception section beefed up, but nothing from this current article should be merged, as it is devoid of any reliable, secondary sources actually supporting any of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i somewhat agree but we shouldn't split the topic of the game just at least make it so this article or a brief article is present at suzerain(video-game)wiki page.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article itself smacks of ChatGPT, and fails WP:NOT even before we get to whether it's notable (which it probably isn't). Please "be better" when contributing articles (and no response is necessary to this, I will not be swayed either way). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, i know you said not to respond but this was my first article every i will try to do better

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. I hope that the article creator tries to learn more about Wikipedia. Where other fan wikis are based on fan interpretation of works, Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources, like journalists and book authors. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Travieso

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

Tribute article for a murdered rapper. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs; no notable biographical details prior to his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musical performer. [4], a reward for solving the murder, then nothing for coverage before or since. Had he not passed away, would not be notable for inclusion in wiki and his passing doesn't change that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another case of a murdered rapper whose minor musical accomplishments while alive fail our notability requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. Nobody reported on his music until the news about his murder, but that does not make him notable per WP:NVICTIM either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and his death does not make him notable either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a million times over. Full of meaningless information about anything but his threadbare career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 The Times#Related publications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems fine, it's a part of the overall Times umbrella. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. In the sense of "not delete" - there is no consensus as to whether to merge or keep as a separate article or otherwise rework the content. This discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism

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

Does not fulfill the WP:Notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage that would justify a standalone article outside of Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I really don't understand the deletion rationale here. Sectorally-specific articles are obvious and common sub-articles within the economic topic tree. There are three other country-olive-specific articles already: Olive production in India, Olive cultivation in Palestine, and Olive production in Switzerland. There is already some coverage of this topic at Olive#Judaism and Christianity, and a quick WP:BEFORE finds a huge number of sources covering various aspects of the quite broad topic at hand, including those touching upon aspects not yet included in this underdeveloped article [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] etc. If I was to articulate a potential issue with the current article, it is that the subject may be too broad, covering a few different topics that might be better separated. However, that would result in more articles, not fewer, and the current scope is broad in a way that exceeds the scope of Agriculture in Israel. CMD (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is not that it is country-specific, but that, as you mentioned, merges a country-specific topic with a religion; a merge that has not received significant coverage in RS. I would support the split into two articles, but I don’t think the Judaism part has received any more significant coverage, therefore, I would eventually support moving current article into an Israel-only scope instead. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links between Judaism and Israel have been explored in RS, including specifically with olives [12][13]. There is also research into the broader question of the intersection of Judaism with agricultural practices in Israel and the practical impacts that has[14][15][16] (and for fun here is a really odd paper tangentially stretching from that topic). If those links were less explicit, an article could still be built as a WP:BROADCONCEPT, which the current one appears to be doing. As stated, I don't believe the article should be doing this, but fixing that is not something that involves deletion. CMD (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the first link [17], a paper by an Israeli university, there doesn't seem to be specific coverage of the topic, aside from passing mentions; that is how I have been interpreting significant coverage anyway, to require at least a dedicated chapter or topic. I can't seem to open the second link however. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I took a look at a few of the sources, and I'm not convinced that Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism is itself a thing. Much of the content is suitable for the encyclopedia, but some of it belongs in History of agriculture in Israel and some of it might do well as "Olives in Judaism" or part of Jewish symbolism but I'm not seeing that the physical value of olives as an agricultural product and the symbolic value of olives in Judaism are established to be the same thing in the article in its current form. Also—and maybe I just have too much current events on my mind—the authors may take an interest in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel or in drafting an article compiling all the arguments for and against the existence of Israel as a state because maybe this isn't really about olives. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. The article only deals with the historical and religious perspective. I don't think Israel's legitimacy depends on Olives. I made sure that nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned here to avoid further problems. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being respectfully disagreed with is so refreshing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Just trying to be polite AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sarcasm. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The olive tree and its fruits hold profound significance in Jewish history. It's one of the most important trees in Judaism and holds the designation of the national tree of the State of Israel. Its historical and cultural relevance extends from biblical times through the periods of the Israelite Kingdoms, continuing into the era of the new Yishuv. This article specifically covers the topic from both the historical and religious perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article by the GNG yet limit the scope. Anything with "in Israel and Judaism" in the title will be problematic. If we examine the Olive article, it will become clear that Judaism is already well covered there and this article is a legitimate SPINOFF. Israel is not well-covered. For example, the article should mention that the olive tree is the national tree of Israel. So no need to spin anything Israeli off. Same with Agriculture in Israel. That article should have more information on different fruits, including olives. gidonb (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be three overlapping but identifiable topics clustered together here: Olive production in Israel (modern), Olive production in ancient Israel, and Olives and olive trees in Judaism. Would you say your comment is to limit this current article to the third of these topics, and direct other information elsewhere? CMD (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Olives and olive trees in Judaism should be the title and content. Olive production in ancient Israel is really included in this topic as the reality in ancient Israel is eternalized through Judaism (books that have been copied, rules that have been made based on that reality). Thus an article Olive production in ancient Israel would have a too large overlap ("CONTENTFORK"). The Israel content should be distributed between Agriculture in Israel and Olive, with some content relevant to both, as legitimate parents/siblings in this respect. Olive production in Israel would be a legitimate SPINOFF of both if there were enough content at the level above. There isn't. To the extent ancient Israel is purely based on historic production/cultivation (not the derivative of laws based thereon), also based in archeology, this is legitimate background/history for both articles. So theoretically that could be legitimate SPINOFF if it grew organically. I just don't see that happen. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this article essentially covers three different things, Ancient olive production in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, the religious significance of olives in Judaism, and their relation to the contemporary state of Israel. Thought these things might be related, I would warn against collapsing them into one article, simply on account of it being too broad. I suggest the contents of this article are either 1) merged into other articles: History of ancient Israel and Judah, Ancient Israelite cuisine, Agriculture in Israel, etc. or 2) narrowed down, perhaps focusing on Olives in ancient Israel or perhaps Olives in Judaism/Olives in the Bible. It seems that there really isn't enough content about the present day state of Israel to have a separate article on that. digiulio8 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is enough content on Olives and olive trees in Judaism. In fact, if we would merge that to the parent we'd create a situation of UNDUE. Hence, for this part of the article, it is a justified SPINOFF. Also, Judaism is not limited to the "Bible". That's a projection of Christianity. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why I argue for either merging this content or narrowing its scope. It is really not robust if you brake the sections down and should be mentioned in these relevant kind of "parent articles" in the first place because some of these olives are scarcely talked about at the moment, maybe indicating that the information just be merged. Right now, I'm unsure if there is actually enough content on Olives in Judaism and I believe it would have to continue to be expanded because it continues to collapse: 1) the practices and history of Ancient Israelites, contemporary Jewish practices, and Jewish religious texts. Of course, these are all related (and sometimes these points are connected well within the article), however, at this point, the often scope seems too broad and the topics disjointed. Perhaps it is better to expand on first as a draft in order to justify SPINOFF with a proper scope. I am unsure.

And I am aware of the fact that Judaism does not adhere to the Christian Bible per se and has other associated texts; this is simply for the purpose of congruence with similar articles such as Animals in the Bible, List of Hebrew Bible events, and so on, you could very well name it something else that is really just semantics, in addition to the fact that the use of "(Hebrew) Bible" (or "Tanakh") could include various texts outside of the Torah that remain relevant religiously and could expand on what is already written. digiulio8 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. A strong consensus to Keep this article. But if you are interested in pursuing a Redirect or Merge, you can discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this AFD because it was due to be closed in an hour. Now I see that there was a DRV regarding it even though the fact this was closed and appealed doesn't appear in the discussion any where I can see. So, when I closed this, I was under the impression it was a regular AFD discussion. If this needs to be reopened and relisted, proceed but please note it in this discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

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

The last UK general election was on 4 July 2024. No opinion polls for the next election have been held since then and are unlikely to be held for a while. A case of WP:TOO SOON John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. John B123 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the UK is a large developed country, the first opinion polls for this topic are bound to be published in less than two weeks.Castroonthemoon (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been viewing these UK opinion polling pages daily for a long time, including periods a long way before a general election. I am interested in long-term trends and (polling) reactions to events. For example, I would like to see polling reacions in the first weeks AFTER the general election (now!) to get an idea of the public's reaction to the election result. Please keep these pages and allow them to be updated as they were up until the general election. This page is very useful. Hill Vista (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Hill Vista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic[reply]
Keep If you look at the first polling following the 12th December 2019 General Election, it took place within a month of the election. It doesn't make any sense to delete this article merely because there haven't been any polls within the first nine days. There were also several polls within the first month after both 2017 and 2015 elections. LarryJayCee (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Opinion polling has begun and is on the article (party approval rating and leader approval rating). If we delete this article now it'll only be recreated in a week or two anyway as wider polling resumes. I'm not sure I see the point in deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated soon after. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage party approval ratings and leader approval ratings are a reflection of peoples opinion of the last election not the next election. --John B123 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:OR, especially given that the polls took place after the election. — Czello ^(music) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the sooner that the page is put in place, the better as this will ensure that early opinion polls after the last election are included and therefore any trends in polling from that date will be better defined for viewers looking for the data in a few years time. Crdent (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG, which is what is relevant here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre statement. There are such articles for every general election going back some time. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:D093:4127:6C22:827C (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. Redtree21 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Redtree21 It will take a while before there will be enough data to merit a standalone article, until then it should be merged into Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling N1TH Music (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no point in deleting it when it will simply be recreated again in a short while. G-13114 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and chips condiment if it keeps getting remade WP:TOOSOON? This sounds like it shouldn’t be too hard to drum up a draft, and convince a mop to give it the go ahead, when the time and resource is right. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect as suggested above until there are polls to include. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)~~ Keep now that an election opinion poll has been released and added to the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are already four polls in there. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those are opinion polls for the next election. As the article clearly states: As of 12 July 2024, no voting intent opinion polls have yet been published since the 2024 general election --John B123 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't titled 'voting intention opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election'. Approval rating polls are on the page, since it is a page about polling related to the next election. All of the polls on the page are opinion polls. Benocalla2 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is entitled Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. None of the polls are related to that. --John B123 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then your argument should first be we shouldn't include approval polls (which talk pages would reject, since they are polls relating to opinion), before you argue we delete a page which will be recreated soon after. Talk pages exist to weed out these debates, you can't just nominate a page for deletion because you disagree with what's included Benocalla2 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the page for deletion firstly because there are no opinion polls for the next election yet. The polls you mention are supplemental to the main subject of the page. Secondly, as there are no opinion polls for the next election, there can be no references for them to establish WP:GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Without GNG there can be no article. The fact that almost certainly there will be polls in the future is irrelevant, at the present time the article does not meet the notability requirements. John B123 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of GNG, as it's been brought up more than once now – on a technical level that could be argued, but realistically it's simply not true. Yes, opinion polling will always be notable, even if the 'main' opinion polling, (rather than approval ratings) has not begun yet. It's difficult to argue this fails GNG when we all know the article will be recreated in a week or two anyway. Deleting it on this technicality seems to run afoul of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. — Czello ^(music) 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benocalla2 Generally, there is a separate article for leadership approval polling. But that’s besides the main point, there’s all of 4 polls, there is no reason this can’t be merged into the also small article for the general election itself until there are at least a couple dozen voting intent polls. Its simply easier to manage. N1TH Music (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect For goodness sake, do not create articles that have literally zero content about the actual subject just to have an article. This belongs in the main article until actually warranted. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not "literally zero content". Four polls are already in there. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those 4 polls are not Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election which is the page title, so in relation the the page title "literally zero content" is a fair comment.--John B123 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as suggested above by G-13114, there's very little reason to delete this article when in a matter of days it'll probably have more poll entries on it than your typical NZ election would have in total by the end of their government's 3 year term. This in addition to the fact that despite not being any post-election voting intention polls as of yet, there already exist a handful of leadership rating polls conducted after the election on the page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahnamate (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article will obviiously become more important over the next 4-5 years (after which it will becone a historical record) - why delete something that would inevitably have to be created and why waste other editor's time? Roy Bateman (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's little reason to delete the article since it will be recreated within a week of its deletion. The article shouldn't have been created before any VI polling was done, however that isn't justification to delete it. There are still opinion polls on the page (party and leadership approval) and such it still fulfils the title purpose. This discussion is a waste of time, and it is preventing editors from actually contributing to wikipedia. Opinion polls aren't just voting intention, they are polls asking for public opinion. Benocalla2 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. 217.79.149.203 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it's abundantly clear that it won't be long until this is definitely a justified page to have. It's not as if there's a chance that there will never be justification for this page. 146.90.4.163 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Almost certain that this will change within the next fortnight, not to mention other means of polling, if not approval data, listed upon the page; Having acknowledged that there are no apparent documents of official opinion polling as of yet, it is suffice to say further shall become available shortly. Temporarily deleting the article until recreation after opinion polling is published is simply beyond futile.

TheRevisionary (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article will be relevant later; there is no point deleting this, as polling will appear within 4 weeks. This would be better rather than deleting this and creating this again. Gordonltycall (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Gordonltycall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic[reply]

Keep. There is now national VI polling and there will be more in the coming weeks. CipherRephic (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~@Dclemens1971 and CipherRephic: The WeThink poll recently added to the page is a poll on the last election not the next one. As far as I'm aware there are still no polls for the next election.~~

Whilst at some stage in the future, when several relevant polls have been carried out, this will be a valid article, at present it fails the WP:GNG notability guidelines. From WP:CLOSEAFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Arguments such as little reason to delete the article since it will be recreated within a week of its deletion are not policy based.

So the work editors have already put into the article is not lost, I would suggest the article is draftified until sufficient polls have been carried out to enable it to pass WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down halfway on the WeThink poll. It was fielded July 11-12 and included a question on future voting intention. I had no problem with this page existing once polls were available to include on it so I see no reason not to keep now. And of course the work on the article would not be lost with a redirect, but that expedient is no longer necessary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WeThink poll is not, in fact, "a poll on the last election." The fieldwork was conducted on the 11th and 12th of July, several days after the election, and while it asked some questions on the intricacies of voting behaviour going into the election, the section used by the article - the VI polling - covers the next election. CipherRephic (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 and CipherRephic: Thanks for the clarification, I only read the first part of the article which is about the last election. --John B123 (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first poll has already come out at this point. If it was deleted, it wouldn't be long before it was recreated anyway. DarkHorse234 (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no reason to delete an article for the small period of time in between the last election and the first poll. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never too soon 82.2.138.124 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As polling companies are starting to conduct opinion polls again, the article is already to take shape. —Paul1337 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason for deletion whatsoever 82.33.38.15 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been one poll conducted and published per BPC rules. The argument is thusly null and void. DogTwo (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's obvious that this isn't going to be deleted, it's just wasting people's time. Isn't it time to put this to bed now? This should never have been reopened. G-13114 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frankly, it is ridiculous to suggest deleting this. Likewise any other such pages which show op.polls for a national election. 2.68.82.235 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have polling for the next election coming out. This AFD was TOOSOON. FOARP (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election. Both articles are small: "Next United Kingdom general election" is just over 14000 bytes large and "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election" is just over 13000 bytes. Compare those to this AfD which prior to my edit stood at 18000 bytes, and infact the AfD would have 1000 more words than the just under 1500 words a combined election and opinion polling article would have, and therefore it would be better for the time being to have one article covering both of these related topics, and there is no reason to WP:SPLIT them (with the words count being less than a quarter of the 6000 suggested as a baseline to start splitting articles based on length), rather it is inconvient to do this because it means we are separating out the two topics. To my knowledge, there is not enough notable information about either topic that would significantly lengthen either article.

Some editors have commented that other elections have separate opinion poll articles, but WP:Other stuff exists points out this is not a good argument by itself, and the argument fails to recognise that other opinion polling articles have hundreds if not thousands of opinion polls and other surveys described in them, while the one in question has 1 opinion poll and a few surveys. Another point being made is along the lines of "there's no point deleting it now because it will just be recreated in the future". This argument seems a) to suggest it's difficult to recreate articles, which it isn't and b) to be an argument focused entirely on what will be best in the future, and not what is best now. So, for the short term, it would be best to have one article with all the verifiable information about the next UK general election, as there is not enough information to merit needing two articles. This will almost certainly change (although probably not as Czello says in a week or two as only a handful of polls would be published by then most likely), but I'm thinking about the here and now. To summarise, a list of a handful of opinion polls/surveys does not merit being a separate article. --Ted Edwards 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 WP:G11 and WP:A7 by User:Deb (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Emeka Chukwudi

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

Few reliable sources, likely fails WP:BIO. If not, this article needs some cleanup to meet WP:MOS Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as G11 since it perfectly qualifies under such criterion. There was no need for bringing this to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I added A7 to the G11, there was no need for an AfD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete: per A7. Nightrises10 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly (film series) characters

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is completely unrelated to the TV series Firefly (TV series), so don't redirect there. Firefly (film series) doesn't exist anymore (speedied in April).– sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the film series was speedied, this subsarticle has even less reason to exist. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the main flim article was deleted. There is already a character list for the overall series at List of Firefly (TV series) characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to ~~producer/~~network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Updated !vote:I have added things and I am now convinced it meets the requirements for notability (more sources exist).My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article demonstrates plenty of coverage of the series, although I am unsure if these would be promotional/routine news coverage. In any case, there is plenty of such sources beyond those used in this article: [18] Aintabli (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will now keep per WP:HEY. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of trees of the northeastern United States

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

A guide article that violates WP:NOTGUIDE. dePRODed in 2018 with the rationale "valid information". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Who thought that Wikipedia was the proper venue for something like this? 9t5 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unvarnished field guide key, not an encyclopedic article. NOTGUIDE indeed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Elmidae's statement and WP:NOTGUIDE Lordseriouspig 07:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTGUIDE. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be copied to Wikiguide if someone cares to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikiguide? SEWilco (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Procyon117 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bduke (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & weak delete - I believe that this article could be converted from a Guide to a description of the characteristics that distinguish the trees from one another. That would be encyclopedic, I believe. However, it should not be a synthetic derivative from the sources, but derived directly from sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Robbie

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

Does not contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Israel. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Sources in the article mentioned the subject in passing, some are PR materials except one that give significant coverage and seems reliable. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confused by Delete argument that states a source provides significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, much of the article reeks of WP:PROMO as well. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sources have been added so that the article now passes the general notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 06:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yamaha motorcycles. Failed to find any sufficient sources to support the article.
Redirect per above. BilletsMauves^€500 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added five-six sources; this motorcycle is frequently referred to as "legendary" in Indonesia and has significant secondary coverage, including from IDN Times and Autos.id. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. I agree that the sources added by Mr.choppers amount to significant coverage; I'm just not sure whether it's all reliable coverage, as I have no experience with Indonesian-language sources. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been edited a lot since its nomination. An assessment of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP:NPRODUCT with ease. Google has begun compartmentalizing the internet and isolating us inside of our own borders; the only way to find sources nowadays is by using other search engines or VPNs. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Sorry, was unaware that I did not need to vote again. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers, you've already !voted on this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since passing the GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 HackMiami. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [19][20] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Infosecwiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vote to Keep:~~ The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.

The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to above, i vote for ~~Keep~~ Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HackMiami as an ATD. I agree that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are insufficient per the reasons stated above (although I've started a discussion elsewhere regarding the soundness of SPS's rule against using expert SPSes in BLPs). I have been unable to find additional sources indicating notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor (given name)

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

No indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between a "double name" versus a "given name/middle name combo"? Isn't a middle name just another given name (after the first name)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A double name is a given name formed by two names, e.g. in either Pope John Paul, where John Paul is the given name. These are usually hyphenated. A middle name is a name that is given but is not a given name. People aren't typically referred to by it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in countries whose forms list "given names", where first name and middle name are expected to be listed. Some airlines' ticket systems do this too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life, especially not within the countries they are from. In any case the article's phrasing of John Taylor as a double name is incorrect. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though I don't believe any of the people listed are likely to be referred to as "John Taylor" in daily life ...: If that is indeed the case (no opinion), the respective page titles should be using parenthetical disambiguation with a more common name, and not attempting natural disambiguation with a supposed uncommon "John Taylor" in their page title. Per WP:NATDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I'm not sure how many are commonly referred to with the "Taylor" included, but they would likely either be referred to by their full name or first and last name. It would be rather unusual for them to be known by just their first and middle name. I'd assume there's a reason why such indexes aren't typically created on Wikipedia. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there's similar pages at Category:Compound given names.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those are hyphenated French names. Some are unhyphenated French names, and some of those are highly suspect. E.g. Alphonse Joseph has two entries. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia as Alphonse Georges, and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. Alphonse Joseph Glorieux has a French wikipedia article titled Alphonse Glorieux, an Idaho Statesman article names him the same way (the bishop was assigned to Idaho), and his own English article explicitly says "Alphones Glorieux was born on ...", so I am going to nominate that (and probably others like it) for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I've also found several English examples (Friedrich Gottfried, Julie Marie, Rupert Charles) created by the banned User:Neelix, which I have also nominated for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proven that any of these are compound names. We don't index by random given/middle name combinations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of this post seems to have a strange desire to remove all links to the name 'John Taylor' from Wikipedia and has been editing out hatnotes denoting this from numerous articles to push this point of view. Given there are over 200 individuals named John Taylor on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor), this would make for a nonsensical decision, because this act is removing a useful search function. Author of this post has also has a history of edits being repeatedly reverted after deleting segments from numerous articles for seemingly no rationale other than styling Wikipedia to suit their personal preference and then nominating the articles for deletion when his / her edit wars don't get approved. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my rationale, not a "personal preference": WP:NAMB applies. There is no rational purpose for a hatnote to John Taylor in John "Pondoro" Taylor's article, for example. If a reader ends up in the latter article, they're not looking for some other person. FYI, I have finished removing those hatnotes; in a few cases, I replaced them with more sensible ones. The one in John Henry Taylor now points to another John Henry Taylor. Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher)'s hatnote points to Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are verging on Wikipedia:No personal attacks with a non-existent "spectrum issue". An editing guideline, not my dislikes, drives my edits. And I'm not deleting names as you falsely claim, merely useless hatnotes. Also, you've been reverted by both me and an IP for your insistence on keeping a hatnote to John Taylor in John Taylor Gatto, which makes no sense. Finally, contrary to your inaccurate insinuation, I have created dozens of name lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever the community decides. However, I suspect the IP is a sockpuppet of yours. MrEarlGray (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is a personal attack. Desist, or I will report you. (Or request a sockpuppet investigation, so I can sneer at your baseless insinuation.) I don't need to hide behind sockpuppets. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How many of these people were known as "John Taylor" vs. those were their first and middle names? I don't think this dab page is necessary beyond the ones we already have. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of this discussion was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is a list of prefix matches which aren't included on John Taylor. It's not a useful grouping, because it is unclear that "John Taylor" is a double name for any of these people. A link to Special:PrefixIndex/John Taylor on the John Taylor DAB page would be sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Taylor? So obvious, I guess everyone else has a good reason for not suggesting it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor is not a given name. That would be the only justification for adding the entries to a dab page. Otherwise, WP:PTM would apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm reluctant to close this when few participants have provided policy-based reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. This shouldn't come down to a personal preference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: This is not a matter of personal preferences, as MrEarlGray claims, but rather there is not a shred of evidence that "John Taylor" is a real given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no policy-based rationale offered for deletion, and there is a plain one for keep. Per WP:DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And all 14ish people linked on this page have a WP:COMMONNAME that starts "John Taylor". Regardless of whether "John Taylor" was intended to be a double-barreled name like "Mary-Kate" or some such, people searching for on the commonly names of these individuals will experience easier navigation with this page (and it actually helps navigation since it breaks them out from the firstname/lastname John Taylors on the other dab page). (P.S. I removed the bishop with the double-barreled last name who was incorrectly added to this dab page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal. No policy-based rationale? The article explicitly claims it is a double name, plus it's right there in the article's title. Where's the evidence that this is another Billy Joe? We don't create lists for any two random names. The search function is quite adequate for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: IMO you're missing the point. This is not a given name, so why should a lying article be spared? Something like "Billy-Joe" shows up in name websites,[21][22] as does "Betty Jane",[23][24] but nothing, zilch, nada for "John Taylor" as a given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was offerring my opinion on the state of the discussion. But given these challenges, I'll leave this discussion for another closer to handle in case my perception is inaccurate. Let's see how a different closer sees this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In support of the rebuttal, we have John Taylor (disambiguation) for people actually named John Taylor. None of these people are likely to be known as "John Taylor" since it's their first and middle name and therefore for disambiguation purposes this page would run afoul of WP:PTM. I suppose someone could forget the surname of one of the people listed and just remember the John Taylor part of their name but that's why we have the search function rather than indexing every random first/middle name combo that exists. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to delete is going to emerge here. A potential merger doesn't require an additional relist. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[25] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Parker (police officer)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [26]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([27]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure of any notability here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: didn't find coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Palo Alto (disambiguation). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palo-Alto

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. Also, it is similar to both the problematic cases of Milagrosa and Paciano Rizal: it only serves as a directory: a breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing about this besides a google map location and this Wikipedia article, not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these utterly impossible Philippines articles. It had 195 people living there in the 1903 census. Lots of historical results in English including mentions in parliament and legal matters, and the establishment of a co-operative in 1991, but can only find real estate listings. I haven't searched in local newspapers, though, but I'm making the assumption this needs to pass GNG and not GEOLAND, and I can't quite get there yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation). Palo Alto, Calamba already redirects to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays and I'll add an entry for it at Palo Alto (disambiguation). There are insufficient reliable sources to say the hyphenated version of this name should only refer to this barangay, and some evidence ([28], [29]) that this barangay is also known as "Palo Alto" without the hyphen. Either way, there's no evidence of standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the best solution. —seav (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to this. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation) per Dclemens1971's suggestion. HueMan1 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palo Alto (disambiguation) per Dclemens1971 and WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dclemens1971. It's not impossible that an article could be written about the barangay, but it would require sources that haven't been demonstrated and would need to be at a different title. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paciano Rizal, Calamba

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article, with a one but non-independent citation (Calamba city government). The article primarily serves as a directory, with listings of their establishments, government offices, and industrial sites. A breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being legally recognisable isn't enough. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to search for because it was named for Paciano Rizal. There's definitely some scholarly hits talking about schools, but would need to search a local paper in order to be sure. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 convert to disambiguation page‎. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab

Milagrosa may refer to:

Places
- a baranggay in Calamba, Laguna
- a baranggay in Carmona, Cavite
- a baranggay in Quezon City

Buildings and structures
- Church of La Milagrosa, a Roman Catholic church in Spain
- Puente La Milagrosa, a bridge in Puerto Rico --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think barangays can even be listed in dab pages unless there is an actual article, or that it is discussed on another article; mere mentions in lists of barangays don't count.

With that being said, Milagrosa in Quezon City is historical for being the first and still only place where a People's Initiative made it to a ballot. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and HueMan1: Are you fine to convert it to a dab instead? See my suggestion above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support disambiguation as above: I don't see enough that would make this substantially notable enough for its own article, and there seem to be many similar places that would be better in a disambiguation page rather than picking one to be the sole redirect target. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dab per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 03:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ashmalee

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

This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians for the Maldives. Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cabinet ministers are generally presumed notable via WP:NPOL as national officeholder; is this ministerial position a cabinet position or is it a civil service one? Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be civil service (appointed bureaucrat, no mention of cabinet or the like). A presumption of notability does not apply here per the subnational politicians country listing for the Maldives. JFHJr (㊟) 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayapa

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Another barangay article with questionable sources and scope. Much of the content is too focused on its camp (Camp Vicente Lim), and majority of the sources do not back the notability of the barangay, but instead support the notability of the camp. There is no inheritance of the camp's notability to the barangay. The two other sources are questionable: non-independent source from the city government, and mere statistical listing from the Philippine Statistics Authority.

See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makiling, Calamba

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article since the article was created in 2014. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. There is no inheritance of notability of Mount Makiling to this obscure barangay article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Olaso

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

Footballer whose article has no footnotes, and whose only references are external links to database entries, and so does not meet general notability or sports notability in its current state. The article says that he played for the Spanish national team, which is probably true but unverified, and there isn't a football notability guideline that says that this is notability or presumed notability. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage within seven days.

Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the poorly sourced footballer articles around, why pick a player for AfD who played for two of the biggest clubs in Spain and made four international appearances for Spain? 🤔 What did your "search for additional sources" per WP:BEFORE yield? A quick web search found me [30] and [31] though for a player of this era most coverage is more likely to be found offline. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable figure, shown by sources above and COMMONSENSE which would say that offline sources exist. Giant Snowman 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a player of Real Madrid easily passes WP:FOOTYN. The article needs to be improved. I found a couple of online sources, I think there are others, not to mention offline. [32][33]. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Player notability" part of WP:FOOTYN has been deprecated. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. thanks Tau Corvi (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [34], [35], lets throw a few more sources into this bout! Really Robert, this was not a good candidate for AfD. The article certainly needs an improvement, but the negation of sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are numerous detailed sources available for this school see this. I find it extremely hard to believe that any WP:BEFORE could have possibly been done. Nominator should withdraw this. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources referenced in the article or linked to above are anything more than passing mentions, and I can't find anything else that would make the subject pass WP:GNG. BilletsMauves^€500 13:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world, especially one that's nearly ninety years old. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give a detailed of explanation of why this school merits an article? 1keyhole (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. jp×g 🗯️ 12:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; there's secondary sourcing and the nominator does not make an argument otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 12:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per everybody else. In 1980, an explosion at the school killed a student. I have added information about it to the article. Furthermore, genuine WP:SIGCOV likely exists in the other 8,000 search results on Newspapers.com. Scorpions1325 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

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

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

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

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899, as it is unlikely to see enough sourcing for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's no 'merging' to be done as all relevant content is already included at the target. Simply redirect it to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge or redirect. Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889, no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

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

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the last AfD so we can compare? Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD came when the article was titled at Denial of the 7 October attacks, and thus is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, I remember that one... Yes, I'm not keen on wading into that again either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete second JPxG's arguments. I'd suggest a merge, but there's really not much to salvage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPxG. As anticipated at the previous deletion discussion five months ago, it has proven impossible to find a source-based coherent scope here. The content is an unnecessary fork from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable subject.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable subject, but poorly covered in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources establishing notability (I'm not double checking reliability though, so this list may include some articles that don't qualify to establish notability. I'm including ADL because I'm not sure what that RfC meant for establishment of notability.):
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-792968
https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/byctjmo1r
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denial-and-distortion-hamas-led-october-7-attack-overview-false-narratives
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-07-07/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-chutzpah-of-the-october-7-deniers/00000190-89b4-d8b2-a3b6-fdff369a0000
https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-denial-and-disinformation-facing-october-7-survivors-20240630-p5jpy2.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-794596
https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-remembrance-means-rooting-out-oct-7-denial-opinion-1864346
https://forward.com/opinion/574713/holocaust-denial-belief-oct-7-hamas-israel/
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-785628
https://www.irishtimes.com/history/2023/11/10/too-many-people-are-in-denial-about-events-of-october-7th-says-israeli-ambassador/
https://jewishinsider.com/2024/04/the-effort-to-document-the-events-of-oct-7-for-posterity-and-against-the-deniers/
https://www.nysun.com/article/as-october-7-deniers-emerge-we-could-use-a-man-like-dwight-eisenhower-again ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- just a quick reply (this is not intended as a counterargument, I have not reviewed all of these sources) – just wanted to inform you that the ADL cannot be used as a source on these subjects since I noticed at least a couple of those links are to the ADL website. See WP:ADLPIA. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I took a closer look at all of the sources here, and I can't say I'm impressed.
  - To start, we must note that nearly all of these are opinion pieces and should be handled appropriately per WP:RSOPINION. Such sources can be used with attribution as statements of opinion, but cannot be used for statements asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. That already raises some significant issues. If we're going to make an article with a title like "Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", it might be nice to have something other than op-eds. Furthermore, some of these sources are unreliable or questionably reliable, most of them would be considered biased on the relevant subject, and some of them aren't even about the topic at all, they only happen to contain some keywords that make it sound like they'd be related.

I'll go through them all in order:

The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.

TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.

A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.

I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the Anti Defamation League an unreliable source on the topic of combatting defamation? Colt .55 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:

Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
Tagesspiegel
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Il Foglio
Libération: [36] & [37]
The New Statesman
The Australian
Le Figaro
Il Giornale
La Repubblica
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
American Jewish Comittee
Jewish Insider
ynet news
i24 News
The Guardian
Jewish News Syndicate
The New York Times
The Atlantic
MSNBC
Die Welt
Star Tribune

-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it probably is independently notable, but there is some discussion of denialism on the misinformation article, so it is a suitable target. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it should be, just pointing out that there is a good target if the discussion tends towards deletion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge To me this seems to violate NOTNEWS and reeks of recentism.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable enough subject for its own article, and reads more like a personal ramble than anything else Snokalok (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is highly notable and relevant. Politicians and news channels have dedicated time to this (see links below). The article just needs improving. October 7th denial, and specifically rape denial is extremely pervassive amongst anti-Israel protests, well documented, and this page, once improved, can be an objective resource for those understanding the phenomenom.

Congresswoman on CNN: [38]
Congressman on his own social media: [39]
TalkTV: [40]
Article on Roger Water's denial: [41]
Denial by pro-Palestinian protestors at Berkeley City Council meeting: [42]
Denial speeches by student leaders: [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt .55 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baanty

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

Yet another musician, creative director, or music executive who critically fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. Another article written in a way that, if not carefully looked at, will look like it clearly passes any notability guideline, whereas it critically doesn't pass any. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Geezy, looking at the sources, they are either PRs/advertorials for music releases or lacking in WP:SIGCOV, they are also mostly unreliable pieces (without a proper byline). The source cited for the claim that they won an award Nigerian Books of Record in 2021, here utterly fails verification because there was no mention of Baanty, Ikpon Kelvin or even "Creative Director" which they won. It is also pretty dubious since the article says they've been active since 2022, so how come winning an award from the prestigious NBR? The other award and nominations isn't/aren't significant enough to make the subject presumptively notable under any criteria. Overall, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NMUSICIAN. The sources cited in the article are PR pieces. It lacks independent coverage and fails to establish notability. Further, the timeline and awards are inconsistent, further undermining the article's credibility and notability.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV, most of it promotional. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE or even WP:NMUSICIAN. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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