Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 24	August 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Liberal Democratic Party of Afghanistan

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

Having gone through the party website, both the old one and new one, I'm convinced that this would be a one-man outfit at most. It does not appear to be a serious political organization, the tone is often incoherent and just weird, such as making claims to have 117,000 members or listing members of a future government. Soman (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when trying to look for the party office, I note that the websites give different addresses, either Hürderstraße 2 or Hürderstraße 4 in Kirchheim bei München. Just that the latter is inside the Maxx Arena facility. And the former is the office of an IT company. From 2009 there is also an address for party office at Zepellinstrasse 10, Garching, [1] which also looks bit odd for a party HQ. --Soman (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Afghanistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This newspaper clipping from 2002 [2] is seemingly the only evidence of IRL existence of the party. But also this article some pretty wild claims are made, such as having 2,700 party members (300 in Peshawar). --Soman (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching in Dari (حزب مستقل و دموکراتیک افغانستان) and Pashto (د افغانستان دموکراتیک او خپلواک ګوند) gives zero hits on google. Zero. --Soman (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Pavel Durov

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

This is a recentist fork of material that really belongs in the main Pavel Durov article, which is easily short enough to be able to accommodate it. This article should be deleted, and the content merged to Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Business, Internet, and Websites. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pavel Durov: I was in the process of creating a merge discussion when this AFD was created. I think the content in Arrest of Pavel Durov can easily be explained in the context of Pavel Durov and a merge would not cause any article-size problems in Pavel Durov. It strikes me that having a separate article for Arrest of Pavel Durov is engaging in WP:RECENTISM and runs contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see that the separate article passes the ten year test. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, I tend to agree, however, I suspect that this article will continue to expand with the eventual inclusion of court proceedings, aftermath, and precedence. It seems more likely than not that this event will only evolve and even its current form will be able to stand on its own. Let’s suppose for some reason he were released tomorrow I could see a reason for AfD, but then we’re really talking about CRYSTAL territory.

Giving consideration behind the prolific use of Telegram and Pavel’s involvement with the business, and with the charges being levied against him I don’t see how his arrest (and subsequent actions) won’t have lasting WP:IMPACT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Russia. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing plenty of reliable and notable sources talking solely about the arrest, so I think that warrants a stand alone article. Scu ba (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let the news evolve for valuation.--Crossswords (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is already a major global event with full WP:SIGCOV pieces from every WP:RS/P on the specific arrest (this is really a Snow Keep, and the OP should familiarize themselves with WP:GNG). There is a longer-term question of whether it should be stand-alone or merged with his main BLP, but it too soon to tell and the event is still developing, so I would hold a separate article for now. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't argue that the event is non-notable, but I would argue that it is WP:TOOSOON to know what, if any, lasting impact it will have. If it turns out to be the subject of lasting coverage it can just as easliy be split back off later. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Sunni-Shia Conflicts (7th Century-Present)

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

Disputed draftification (which I struggled to find amongst the welter of moves!). Fails WP:V, entirely unreferenced. Draftify pending references since there is likely inherent notability. WP:DRAFTIFY means I cannot do this unilaterally and a consensus must be formed to do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Islam. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mobaraki

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted in 2022 with editors noting that they couldn't even find basic stats pages. It's been recreated with no additional evidence that this football player passes WP:NSPORT, much less WP:GNG. The only sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of matches and transfers in Iran; no WP:SIGCOV at all and not even any of the common stats profile pages. There's also insufficient evidence for the claim he plays or played for Sporting CP B; the only source for that claim is this dodgy-looking article, but this player has never appeared on the Sporting CP B roster or anywhere on Sporting CP's website. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Tour

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social disorganization theory

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting idea but poorly organized. Can we rescue this one? Bearian (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to allow interested editors to improve. Right now, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG but it seems like other participants see value in rescuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slime (homemade toy)

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 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 restore and close‎. Closing this as involved as an obvious hoax troll created by a now-globally-locked LTA. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 00:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make You Dance (song)

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

WikiText2007 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: You have not placed a reason. Replace PLACE REASON HERE with a valid reason. WikiText2007 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the proper {{subst:afd2}} formatting here, which had not been done. Normally I have no further opinion or comment on such malformed nominations, but this is not one of those times: the nominator, in addition to not providing any rationale yet (which can lead to a speedy keep), was the one to replace a redirect to Make You Dance (which is, indeed, a song), and was trying to AfD the page from the start. The history of the page indicates that its entire non-redirect history (until the past few days, all in 2021) has been about a purported "Thicke Levine Timberlake" song (as opposed to the Meghan Trainor song it has been redirecting to). I don't see any value as to retaining anything beyond the redirect in its July 2020 form, but under the circumstances I'm not sure this nomination should, in and of itself, end as anything other than some kind of speedy close. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to what happened here. The nominator claims this is a hoax – which it does seem to be (there is no song with Pharrell Williams and Madonna called "Make You Dance") ‒ yet they were the one to create the page from a redirect? And they were trying to nominate it for deletion right away? Regardless, I guess the redirect to Make You Dance should be (speedily?) restored as whatever the page is about right now is a hoax. C F A 💬 00:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of important publications in geology

AfDs for this article:

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

Currently this article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:coatrack. There is no clear criteria of what counts as a "important publication" and no prose explaining why an entry is noted enough to be included. Vast amounts of the list is unsourced. The previous discussion, which closed as "keep" in 2011, did not adequately address the WP:Indiscriminate concern. Foundational works in geology already have a place in the History of geology article. the majority of the list is POV inclusionism with no Secondary or tertiary coverage actually calling the entries out. Kev min § 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barney McLure

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

Non notable player, would fall under WP:NSPORT. No sources beside passing coverage in stat sheets, and an obituary. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. Trove brings up some things that look decent, particularly [3] and [4]; also [5] and [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POPin

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

nonnotable business --Altenmann >talk 22:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix LaHaye

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

This businessperson biography fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sourcing is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, media WP:INTERVIEWS, unreliable sources (a la Forbes Contributors) and affiliated sources (profiles on his university's website) to synthesize notability that doesn't exist. There's only one source that gets close to WP:SIGCOV (here) and even that is mostly interview-based. The 30-under-30-type awards received do not meet the award test of WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Video games, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Dib

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia version of this page may have potential sources. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ghulam

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

WP:BLP of a beauty pageant contestant, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for beauty pageant contestants. The attempted notability claim here, that she won Miss World Canada (but not the international final), would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG — note, for comparison, that most winners listed in the Miss World Canada article are unlinked names, and only a few of them actually have their own standalone biographical articles independently of the list.
But the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as her own self-published website and a photo of her in a stock photo repository and a short promotional blurb on Zimbio, with absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Kind Bakkevig

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

Non-notable undrafted college hockey player, virtually unsourced BLP. Fails the GNG; complete lack of significant coverage to the subject in multiple reliable sources. Deprodded by the article creator with the edit summary "he has played 2 games in of of the major professional leagues (Swedish Hockey League)," but the creator is well aware (through a long history of their submissions going to XfD) that simple league participation was deprecated from NSPORTS years ago now, and articles on athletes are neither exempted from the GNG nor from the requirements of BLP. Ravenswing 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Norway, and Massachusetts. Ravenswing 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that that policy had been changed. I know that the the DEL and Slovak league had been downgraded but I was under the assumption that appearances in leagues like the NHL, KHL, and Liiga were still considered sufficient since the notability guidelines make no mention of the "major" leagues. If that is not the case, than Oskar Kind Bakkevig would not meet notability. However, I think it would help if a list of leagues where appearances alone constitute notability were placed in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Ice hockey, or that it is not accepted in and of itself. Assuming that everyone knows when changes occur or what changes have occurred will result in miscommunications such as this. PensRule11385 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Farmelo

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer who appeared in one pro game as a teen. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colorado. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, also adding that a BLP needs much better sourcing to stay online.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Dixon

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2.
As always, the notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because the person exists, and requires significant press coverage supporting a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth.
But there's virtually nothing like that here: this consists mainly of unsourced biographical background about his childhood and educational and premayoral career credentials, before dispatching his mayoralty with a short section stating that he was elected but saying nothing of any substance about his work in the office. And the sole reference in the entire article is a primary source table of the election results themselves on the self-published website of the county elections office, with not a single hit of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in any reliable sources shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this, and it also warrants mention that this was created by an WP:SPA whose edit history has revolved exclusively around this page and the virtually identical duplicate Draft:Michael A. Dixon. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the massive amount of unsourced information for the WP:BLP. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Wikipedia community and the nominating party for their diligence in maintaining the quality and integrity of content on the platform.

I understand that the Wikipedia guidelines are in place to ensure that all articles meet the required standards, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion.

I am writing to seek clarification on the recent nomination for deletion of the Wikipedia page for myself, Mayor Michael Dixon of Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The page in question was carefully modeled after the existing Wikipedia page for Allegheny County Executive Sara Innomorato, with a structure and format that aligns with Wikipedia's standards for biographies of public officials.

Given that both pages share a similar framework, I am seeking to understand the specific reasons behind the nomination for deletion of my page. If there are particular issues related to notability, sourcing, or content that differentiate my page from that of County Executive Innomorato, I would greatly appreciate it if these could be clearly identified. This would not only help in understanding the current nomination but would also allow me to make any necessary improvements or adjustments to the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Furthermore, I would like to inquire if there are any additional criteria or factors that were considered in the nomination of my page that may not have been applicable to the page of County Executive Innomorato.

Understanding these differences would be invaluable in ensuring that the content is presented in a way that meets Wikipedia's expectations and standards.

Once again, I extend my thanks for the work that goes into maintaining the platform, and I look forward to your guidance on how best to address the concerns raised.

Sincerely, Michael Dixon Mayor, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iupwarrior2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you must post to the bottom of this page, not the top.

Secondly, please familiarize yourself with our rules around WP:AUTOBIO, under which you're not allowed to start your own article about yourself.

Thirdly, please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains why the existence of another article about somebody else is not a convincing argument in and of itself as to why your article should also exist — Sara Innamorato's article cites proper reliable sourcing to establish notability, and contains content about the political impact of her work in the job she holds, both of which your article is missing. As I already explained: the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show that he exists — it's to demonstrate that he has WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, in reliable sources such as news media and books, that enable us to write a substantive article about his work in the mayoralty. This article, however, is almost entirely about your childhood and educational and family background, not your work as mayor, and cites no reliable sourcing to support any of the content with — and people (regardless of their occupation) are never entitled to keep Wikipedia articles written and sourced like that.

It's not a knock against you as a person, but the article has to comply with our content standards. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murshid (TV series)

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

References are unreliable as they are churnalism and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Tagged for notability hoping better sources would be introduced but tag was removed without improvement. The only bylined sources I found were this which is churnalism based off a press release (there are a few others you will find in a WP:BEFORE, and this which is three paragraphs and about one of the actors (only a paragraph about the series). Likely WP:TOOSOON since it hasn't even been released. CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I did attempt to draftify which was likely the best scenario while waiting for the release, but the draftification was also disputed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_ZEE5_original_programming#2024: notable cast. The series is to be launched in 4 days, so really not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

AfDs for this article:

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

This DJ/TV host fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All sources are primary-source official bios or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in other coverage. No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available. (NB: It is listed as a second nomination, but the first nomination's article was likely about a different Jay Knox.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Gonin Musume

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

The only source I found on Google was already in the article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A short search shows there should be a merge and redirect to Otaku no Seiza: An Adventure in the Otaku Galaxy. The group was based on/represented the characters in the game. There are also sources in Japanese, such as an article in Kinema junpō; I don't know if adding something like that is really necessary for a merge, but WP:BEFORE would also indicate searching for Japanese sources in this case. Dekimasuよ! 00:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu Unfortunately, my monolinguism limits my ability to assess sources in Japanese. I don't nominate articles with plenty of non-English sources because of this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Rees

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

Sources included do not prove WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, News media, and Wales. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPKC (disambiguation)

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

Unambiguous. I've deleted the WP:PTMs from the dabpage (CPKC Police et. al.) and the only thing left is CP/KC, which is trivially mentioned at CP/M. That one can be addressed by a hatnote, if that. 162 etc. (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two operating units, Canadian Pacific Railway operating as CPKC and Kansas City Southern Railroad operating as CPKC are not PTMs -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Scranton

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. I can find mentions (such as [7], [8]), but not more than that. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, Norway, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel)

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor removed the AfD template. I have reinstated it and warned them both for a misleading edit summary, and for removal of the template. That last means they have now received a double invitation to make a comment here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is becoming tedious now, reinstating the AfD banner, now for the second time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could anyone with knowledge of the Bengali language please check the sources in the article? GTrang (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GTrang Google Translate is increasingly effective. I was able to see all the (new) sources except one. Each of them speaks to the subject's status as Mayor, and I do not believe that mayors qualify in general for WP:NPOLITICIAN. One also speaks about an affray, but I am not persuaded that this confers notability upon the subject. A gadget of some description prevented my having access to the Jaghonews item in translation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a stroke

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

This article is essentially a dictionary definition with a couple of examples of usage; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It has been tagged for improvement since 2011. Perhaps it should be redirected to Practical joke or Scam or something like that. —Bkell (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarre and indiscriminate WP:NOTDICTIONARY (or WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY) entry. Notwithstanding that this "article" has simply been a target for ATP stuff and nonsense, the titular subject falls below the thresholds of any number of guidelines (including WP:GNG and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE). While I understand the WP:ATD-R suggestions, I personally don't think that either proposed target is entirely correct (as there is no single meaning and, even if we defined the term in either target, using either article to define the term isn't really in project scope either). Just delete. As outside project scope. Guliolopez (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This reeks of 2009 Wikipedia in all the wrong ways. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough information to justify an own article on this phrase. The article is basically just an explanation on what it means and an irrelevant list of it being mentioned in TV shows. The history/origin of this phrase is not mentioned anywhere in the article, which is why I think it can be deleted without any real loss of relevant, encyclopedic content. --Mondtaler (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't the dictionary, we have a site for this. I would support moving this article in some form to the dictionary, however.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gunawan

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. His achievements are all at junior level and at the moment not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. zoglophie^•talk• 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Malaysia. zoglophie^•talk• 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Langdon

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: National winner, thus pass #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Publius Enigma

AfDs for this article:

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

The Publius Enigma was a riddle created to market the 1994 Pink Floyd album The Division Bell. It received some coverage in reliable sources, which is summarised in the Division Bell article under "Release and promotion". However, there isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone article, and much of the current content is uncited (and I can't find coverage of it in reliable sources). I think this should be redirected to The Division Bell per WP:NOPAGE. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Division Bell#Release and promotion per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville Formation

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

There is insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this geological formation for a standalone article under WP:GNG. A stable redirect to Borden Formation#Edwardsville Formation has been repeatedly undone, but despite ample time the editor has done nothing to add additional sources or expand the stub. I propose an AfD consensus to firmly establish the previous redirect, not to preclude expansion in the future should SIGCOV be produced. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Indiana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The redirect was not stable, it was reverted once thus contested, you then reverted back to the redirect with an invalid reason and instead of discussing it at the talk page, you have decided to take it to afd. This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are just going to random pages to "curate" without appropriate knowledge. Also afd is not about article quality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also my revert of the redirect was not contested by the person I reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NGEO is an SNG, thus as a geological formation this meets NGEO as an SNG, GNG is not necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I do not visit "random pages to 'curate' without appropriate knowledge" and I would ask you to strike that remark. New page reviewers may patrol in whatever categories they wish; I have been focusing on the list of unreviewed articles created by blocked users (an area that tends to include a greater share of articles requiring reviewer attention), and that's why this one turned up. As for whether stub length is standard for geological formations, that appears to be untrue (see New Albany Shale, Pocono Formation, Burlington Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Bear Gulch Limestone, Huntley Mountain Formation, Madison Group, Rockwell Formation, Mauch Chunk Formation, and the page I propose redirecting to, Borden Formation, just to look at Mississippian formations in the U.S.). It is also an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If the sourcing is truly limited only to supporting a permanent stub, then the subject fails the WP:NOPAGE test of WP:GNG: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page .... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp Creek Formation, Muldraugh Formation, Salem Limestone, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Warsaw Formation, Keokuk Limestone, Fern Glen Formation, Pierson Limestone, Reeds Spring Formation, all Mississippian formations in the US, all stubs. And to show that it's not just a US thing Meledis Formation. Stub articles form the majority of geological formation articles. And WP:GNG is not necessary when an SNG is met. Hence why SNGs exist. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Regarding the SNG claim, the SNG is unclear about whether geological formations are geographical landforms and thus subject to the SNG. If there's a demonstrated consensus that NGEO applies to geological formations, then I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently providing examples of the majority=OSE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, while an essay this provides evidence that formations are presumed notable.

As for sources I just did a Google scholar search and came up with [9], [10], [11] and [12] within a couple of seconds. Obvious WP:GNG is met. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those links is broken, and I reviewed the others in my BEFORE search. As I mentioned upthread, NOPAGE offers additional considerations if an article cannot be built out beyond a permanent stub. You have not addressed this part of the argument. However, taking the WikiProject essay on notability you offered as representing some degree of consensus on the application of NGEO, I’ll withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Muhimmath

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

Disputed draftification, albeit a few months ago. This is a WP:ROTM charity, albeit performing a useful role. Nothing about it is shown to pass WP:CORP. WIkipedia is not a directory of charities, however useful they are. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two editors have stated the opinion on the creating editor's user talk page that this is likely to be UPE. @Zoglophie and DoubleGrazing: you may wish to offer a contribution to this discussion. I am not seeking to influence the type of contribution you may choose to make. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : looks like the author waited for the dust to settle down before sneaking into disruptively publishing the page into mainspace yet again with long standing COI concerns all littered over in his talk page. I think all his edits need to be examined at ANI. zoglophie^•talk• 14:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, should never have left the draft space (and that's before even considering the COI/UPE issue). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article says that the organization exists. That does not make it organizationally notable. The article does not speak for itself and does not describe what third parties have said about the organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

AfDs for this article:

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

There's some standing consensus that these lists are not encyclopedic because they lack a SELCRIT and so therefore must always be definitionally WP:SYNTH.

The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_presidential_firsts is well worth a read as it was a massive back and forth that ended in no consensus. Since then, other articles have narrowly ended in deletion:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Indian_prime_ministerial_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_presidential_firsts Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Philippine_presidential_firsts

I'm of the view that this kind of article can never ever, in any circumstances, be a good article because it will always be a pile of random information.

BrigadierG (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no policy based decisions for or against keeping this page, but this being the only one kept and the rest deleted reeks of the Americentrism problems on this website. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have seen book entries and magazine articles organized on this topic. Furthermore, this has been kept before and I am not convinced of the need to abandon that consensus _pbp 14:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There's never going to be 100% agreement on any article, and the editors do a good job of deleting pure trivia. The presidency has evolved over the years and this article shows how. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Rashid

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

He has only played 21 mins of professional league football to date and none of the sources come even close to establishing a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC. The best Arabic source that I could find was Raya, which mentions him once only. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Furqan

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

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

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

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

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

NNI News

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

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

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

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

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

Digital Jungle

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

Promo piece on a non-notable marketing agency. Sources don't come even close to establishing notability (most don't even work), and a BEFORE search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NCORP by a country mile. I was going to request A7/G11 speedy on this, but I guess it deserves at least a discussion, given that it's survived 12 years to get this far. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and China. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is likely UPE. I concur with the nom both in their deletion rationale and their AfD instead of CSD due to the age of the article. WP:NOTDIRECTORY of non notable entities. The improvement tags are in two cases from over a decade ago! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of whether this is merc work or not, the article as presented is not up to par and is unlikely to get there within a reasonable timeframe for want of sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker identifies this as a post office and this 1915 county history identifies it as a station on the old C&EI where there was a mill. That's what it looks like on the maps too: a rail point without a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

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

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'redirect to Laos–Russia relations as is the usual outcome for these non-notable embassy buildings. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is possible that the building might have notability beyond its current function. Per Izvestii︠a︡: Vol. 13. Narodna biblioteka "Kiril i Metodiĭ". 1973. p. 538 at the same address there would have been the Czechoslovak embassy, but so far I haven't been able to decipher the chronology. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so ru.wiki has an article on the building per se, at ru:Особняк А. К. Ферстер — Михельсона as a historical architectural monument. I'd say that as such the notability can be established. Furthermore the article can be fleshed out with a bit of history of the embassy. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need sources, the Russian Wikipedia article is lacking them. It does not establish notability for this article. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daigo Tanioka

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. The article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news and lacks significant independent sources that demonstrate sustained coverage or impact. Furthermore, the subject's primary notability appears to be tied to associations with celebrities, rather than achievements that would warrant a standalone article. Also the article has been deleted before. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources with significant coverage of the subject; BBC Marathi and the South China Morning Post are particularly promising. Clearly passes WP:GNG, GNG requires significant coverage of the subject, and these two coverages are not trival at all. And if I talke about the earlier AfD, it was just soft deleted means that was a PROD. GrabUp - Talk 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add a few more points. First of all, this AfD does not fulfill WP:AFDHOWTO, as the nominator did not notify the author. Secondly, I want to counter the nominator’s claim that ‘the article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news.’ My response to this is, that a person related to finance or business will naturally not receive news coverage from entertainment sources, similarly this person will not get coverage from finance-related articles. It is perfectly normal for someone to receive coverage within their relevant niche. The important factor is whether the sources meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV, which I believe is clearly satisfied in this case. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for forgetting to notify the author, it slipped my mind. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M S Hassan: You again forgot to add '(2nd nomination)' while linking to the discussion on the author's talk page, You linked to the first AfD of this article. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE to nominate any articles in the future, as it will automate everything. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Orhan Awatramani is a notable public figure with significant media coverage in reputable sources. He has a strong social media presence and cultural influence, particularly within certain communities. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, supported by reliable, independent sources. Vakanada Putin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Bhutta

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

I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava

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

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

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

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

Continental Nordic race

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 deleted‎ by Jimfbleak per criteria A7 and G11. Page was perfectly eligible for speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oscareduardo10 (Influencer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article, appears to be promoting themselves, and I believed there is a strong possibility that the creator of the article is the same individual as the subject, raising concerns about self-promotion and conflict of interest. Additionally, the references used in the article are not reliable, including social media links and self-published sources that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. Indo360 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enciclopedia Combi Visual

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I found a handful of citations to what might be this book, but not very many. Nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Spain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable. Provides no useful information and no citations, and there don't seem to be readily found sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osyana

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

Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. There doesn't seem to be a lot about the book? There is a decent amount of things in press, but it all appears to be press-release type material (which doesn't count for Nbooks) from the publisher with little information that is more than it exists. There are more press release type materials that said there was going to be a movie to be released five years ago, but that never happened so that criterion of nbooks does not apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamal Zougam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the article to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Delete the person. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Madrid train bombings suspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

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

WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([13], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PARAKANYAA. No indication of WP:PROMO in the article. James500 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eva Carboni

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Her main claim to notability appears to be her collaboration with Mick Simpson, whose own notability remains unclear, but in any case on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only coverage I could find of her in a WP:BEFORE search is in music blogs, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. Salvacarb (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Salvacarb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain the reasons.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:C50B:417B:1664:DB7C (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salvacarb (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[14][15][16] and magazine covers[17][18], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brainy Smurf

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed for NPP. This article was AfD'd previously in 2011, where sources were presented, however I do not believe any of these sources actually help its case given modern standards. All of the sources presented were passing mentions where the character is used as a brief mention with no sigcov. Following this discussion of keep, a discussion to merge was had on the talk page, which reached a conclusion to merge. This was undone recently under the grounds that the character is important and has other language articles, which does not help it pass the GNG. Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters - Of the sources currently in the article, only one of them actually has significant coverage specifically on the character, and I am somewhat dubious as to whether it would count as a reliable source. The handful of sources presented in the previous AFD were all extremely trivial mentions of the character that would not help pass the WP:GNG. Searches are not bringing up significant coverage on the character that would justify an independent article separate from the franchise character article. The argument that it should be kept because other language Wikipedias have articles is not a valid argument itself, especially considering that most of them don't, and the one I found that did, in the French Wikipedia, also doesn't cite any valid sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per Rorshacma. We shouldn't be re-creating articles unless new significant coverage is found and cited. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Pinterest

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Websites, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: standard WP:SPLITLIST, see Category:Technology company timelines. No blatantly promotional language visible, nor is the alleged UPE issue discussed on the TP, so that the tag could, or even should, have been removed. Might need some cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne T. Smith

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Alabama, and Texas. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation. I do question the deletion rationale as the article creator is a current editor in good standing so while the article might have had some editing to it by paid editors, it wasn't created by a UPE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playware Studios

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Technology, and Singapore. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite its many sources, fails WP:GNG. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I do not think a possible conflict of interest alone is a sufficient AfD reasoning, many articles were probably written unknowningly with a conflict of interest. Probably notability issues, but some projects received press coverage. IgelRM (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Home idle load

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering/Archive_1#Is Home Idle Load a neologism? PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedflation

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

I know Shrinkflation exists, but not every neologism needs its own page, many times pages such as this require much more substantial coverage to show the term is lasting and not simply a product of WP:Recent as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a distinct concept and one that is widely discussed in politics around the world and needs its own page to reflect that discussion. Also, the article when this notice was posted had 48 references - how many references does an article need to show that it is notable? Superb Owl (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destra Corporation

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is neutrally written and the company passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I see no evidence that it was "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". It is unlikely that the article was created or edited in return for payment as it looked like this (a small stub) in 2008 when it was placed in administration. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point. @Doc James: as the editor who added the UPE tag, what was your basis for doing so? BD2412 T 18:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here [19] and concerns with this editor.[20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company pass WP:SIGCOV and it was written from a neutral point of view, one of the core principle of Wikipedia Tesleemah (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2024
Keep. The tag can probably be removed, I don't see any COI issues. May have started off that way but it has no issues now IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but the nominator brings up serious concerns that I don't think have been addressed. I guess the question is, if an article started as a possible paid editing project how long is that stigma retained? Does it remain even after regular editors have contributed to the content creation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reviewed Doc James' links. I could not access the first one, Special:Undelete/Domenic Carosa. I accessed the second one, User talk:Miseauxnormes and found a lot of deletion notices. Based on these links, I still do not see evidence that these editors had a conflict of interest with Destra Corporation. It will need to be explained more clearly to me.
Even if those editors had a conflict of interest with the subject, the article was created by the established editor Lester (talk · contribs) who no one has accused of having a conflict of interest with the subject. There is no support in policy or precedent for deleting an article created by an established editor with no conflict of interest with the subject after some editors who are said have a conflict of interest with the subject contributed to that article.
Cunard (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang

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

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anyone willing to take on rewriting a 14 year-old article in Draft space? Because otherwise, Draftification can just mean a CSD G13 in six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr vulpes. It's nice to see you back in AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've updated with multiple sources, removed all the unsourced material and any content that I couldn't find proper sources for. This was a fun clean up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Williams (actor)

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

I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pick-up that the CBC article is about an entirely different person. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? If there are sources they could be added now. This article was created 10:52, 24 December 2015. Draftification should generally be used for newish articles, not articles which haven't demonstrated notability after almost 9 years. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draftifying an article this old is pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTNO does not say, ‘Articles older than 90 days shouldn’t be moved to draft.’ You may have been misunderstood it. It is a guideline for new page reviewers, stating, ‘Do not draftify articles older than 90 days without discussion through AfD. If there is consensus to draftify, then it will be draftified.’ GrabUp - Talk 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:DRAFTNO does pertain to new page reviewers, I do think the general idea that draftification should be used for newish articles holds. I don't think it's appropriate to draftify biographical articles which have failed to established the notability of their subject after almost nine years. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just here to clarify the WP:DRAFTNO; not commenting to the AfD. GrabUp - Talk 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Crestoran Odyssey: Heroes Inception

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

This article was PROD'd but the tag was removed by the article's creator who is also the author of this book. Given that it is self-published, I don't believe it has been reviewed or meets WP:NBOOK. Obviously, COI involved here and all of the editor's content creation. I know that this is not a valid deletion rationale but I thought I'd point it out in this statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and South Africa. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no coverage in any independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find coverage, I checked Google News and Newspapers.com. Book is self published and without outside sources doesn't meet GNG. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, Daviess County, Indiana

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

Baker, in passing, calls this a village, but all I can ever seem to find there is the grain business (now owned by Purdue) which sits next to the tracks as far back as I can see. An 1886 history of the county doesn't mention it, though it mentions various people named Graham. I think this is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BGR Capital & Trade

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

This appears to be a self-promotional article created by the subject, User:BGRCT. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard Swanson

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor flash-in-the-pan news of the wierd, rightly forgotten…except, of course, on wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Events, Football, Transportation, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was on Wikipedia's main page today, under DYK. So, on one hand, there were enough reviews and checking at DYK for this to be approved on the main page. On the other hand, you want us to delete it as soon as its main page appearance is over. I think if it was notable enough for the main page, then it's notable. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice this is against Wikipedia’s own core principles. Wiki itself is not a useful authority for anything.

And no, this should not have been deleted right after it infested the front page; it should have been dealt with before that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a part of the DYK criteria. Articles getting deleted fresh off of DYK is pretty common. (Even GAN and FAC don't check for notability per se, and both have seen articles deleted at AfD.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete To quote the first nom, which was improperly closed: "minor flash-in-the-pan news of the weird." A human interest story from a decade ago with all the overage in that timeframe. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the editor who closed the previous discussion cited Wikipedia:Speedy keep#6 which allows for such a closure. Articles appearing on the main page shouldn't be tagged for deletion as long as they are on the main page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage since the immediate aftermath seems to be routine court reporting on the truck driver's trial, all by local papers. WP:NEVENT asks us to look for "enduring historical significance" or, failing that, "widespread (national or international) impact and [having been] very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Neither of those standards is met here. While tragic, nothing seems to differentiate this case from many, many others of someone dying while doing something somewhat novel and then the resulting trial getting limited follow-up coverage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG in my view regardless of the event, also is this article suppose to be an biography? Wouldn't it be more correct to have the article re-titled? Also Upjav voted keep before the speedy keep, I would have thought it right to ping the guy. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the tag, @Govvy. I'll review policy again per the responses to Maile since my vote was fairly similar to their vote. Upjav (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of X" articles generally boldface the person's name in the first sentence, per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES; that doesn't make this article a biography, and if it were a biography it would fail WP:BIO1E. It's an event, which makes WP:NEVENT (generally a higher bar than GNG) the controlling guideline.. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]