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 07	August 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Nico Pattyn

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

Notability and sourcing concerns. No claim of notability other than performing well in the International Quizzing Championships, no substantial sourcing. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Dutch-language sources from Belgium: [1] and [2]. This is about him doing a parody of something [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palin

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

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

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

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Scottish Young Conservatives

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Conservatives; as an AtD and a not implausible search term. Precedent for this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Young Labour plus other subnational jurisdictions (Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Australia, Virginia, USA). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotland is not a subnational jurisdiction. The Scottish Conservatives function as a separate party. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Scotland not being a sovereign state means it is a subnational jurisdiction. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Insufficient notability for standalone article. Relevant text could be merged in Scottish Conservatives. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing available. Youth wings of major political parties are generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No type of organisation is inherently notable. Please provide sources to satisfy WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied, WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a clearer consensus that Scottish Conservatives is an appropriate redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Onam and Islamic Preachers

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

The recent comments by few religious leaders, which kerala as a whole took it as communal and non secular , should not be given weightage in Wikipedia here. so i find it is non sense to add as an article. This is a Wikipedia article on communal speeches of 2-3 islamic speakers. Also note that in the article Onam it is said that it is a Hindu festival. From the point of islam, celebrating festivals of other religion is not allowed. So creating an article on specific to Onam based on 2-3 Islamic speeches is non sense. Also article used unreliable source such as sunnivoice.net and only news links of Islamic preachers making communal speeches on celebrating Onam

You can find the artcile here: ^[1]

another one : ^[2]

"There is no legal text compatible to this produced even after five centuries from the region, but some preachers with the influence of Arab cultural Islam and its wide influence in the various realm create commotions through unexpected comments against Onam celebrations of Muslim communities. The idea of branding of other cultures as un-Islamic was introduced as part of ‘reform’, but now it silently lingers even the tongue of traditionalists."

These are comments passed by one or two islamic preachers and never to be considered the view point of all Muslims of Kerala. They have rejected these as seen from the article.

The religious organization of muslims in kerala , which represent 95% of muslims in kerala are : Sunni organizations (AP or EK).

These organizations never said 'officially' any comment on onam. Usually it is through fatwa Muslims organizations declare their views. No one released a fatwa.

Mere communal comments of some communal leaders cannot be considered as a mass view and never to be the part of wikipedia as an article

This is a religious promotional article , only made from 2-3 religious preachers speeches — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsrvb (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a subarticle of the main article Onam. This article was created apparently because there was a lot of vandalism on the page Onam because several people wanted to remove content that say Islam is against celebrating non-Muslims' celebrations including Onam. EK Sunnis' several organisations, in a joint statement, has said Islam is against following rituals of other religions.^[3] Moreover, Simsarul Haq Hudawi, belonging to EK Sunnis, has said celebrating Onam is not allowed in Islam.^[4] Ponmala Abdul Qadir Musliyar, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of AP Sunnis has said Islam does not allow to participate in celebratory or non-celebratory activity of non-Muslims.^[5] Mujahids also have said Islam is against celebrating Onam. Reference for all for them are given in the article itself. Fsrvb is one of the persons who belong to those who engage in vandalism by removing content (see: 1 , 2 and 3) saying it is not notable but notability applies to the article as whole, not to content in it. However Wikipedia is not a place to present opinion which few or no one believe. But that is not case here: overwhelming majority of Muslims including Sunnis and Mujahid Salafis have asked Muslims to avoid participating in the Onam celebration. In Kerala 85% (75%+10%) of Muslims belong to either AP or EK or Mujahid organisations (read the article). See: WP:DUE which says:

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof.

The article suggested for deletion is notable and would avoid vandalism and there is enough reason to create a separate article. Fsrvb, who created an account on 28 July 2024, moved the page Onam and Islam whose name at the time was Onam and Muslims to Onam and Islamic Preachers. Fsrvb also suggested the article for deletion. The page Onam is protected for an indefinite period because the topic is controversial. There has been vandalism on the article Onam several times. The vandals were removing the word related to Hinduism to remove mentioning the association of Onam with Hindus and Hinduism(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Such vandalism or disruptive edits were reverted by adding the term which shows the topic's association with Hinduism or Hindus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Similar edits (1, 2, 3, 4) have been done by Fsrvb. Hence this suggestion for deletion of the article is part of vandalism of removal of content.Neutralhappy (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neutralhappy. The article was created as a subarticle and to spread the DUE that was given to that topic. There are various reliable sources that cover the topic significantly and hence SIGCOV and GNG are met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Jalisco cities by population

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

The article functions as a fork from Municipalities of Jalisco. Unlike the linked article, List of largest Jalisco cities by population, is unsourced and outdated. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it, obviously duplicative so doesn't need a discussion. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, as the information is simply duplicate to another article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, did you mean to vote for redirect? I'm not sure what information you think needs to be merged in, if it's simply duplicate. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if there is anything not duplicated, it should be merged. I think they result in the same outcome (the one page is a redirect to the other). jp×g 🗯️ 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, we have opinions for deletion, merger and redirection so I'm going to relist this discussion for a few days until this gets sorted out and, hopefully, JPxG sees this question addressed to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fox Building

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

It does not meet presumed notability under WP:NBUILD and while it might mean something in the local community, it's just a run of the mill old building that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article and the sources don't meet the threshold of independent significant coverage needed for for GNG. This appears to be a part of the broader walled garden on Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA buildings/subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the two book sources, the first falls under WP:ARCADIA and consists only of a photo and its caption. The second is some hyperlocal press (possibly the same as Paper Vision Press / Western Tanager Press?) and has only two passing mentions. This level of coverage is not significant and not enough for WP:GNG, even setting aside the Carmel-related issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the four sources available, we've got two primary source government documents and two books from unreliable publishers. Left guide (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The comments above are the valid default criticisms of the Carmelopedia. Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedaub LTD

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NCORP. All sources I could find are trivial mentions. C F A 💬 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Technology. C F A 💬 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Malta. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet J. Segal

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

Part of a self referential walled garden (created by one editor) of every last grain of sand in Carmel-by-the-Sea, referenced by non RS hyper local media. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a historically significant person. Those with long ties to the community say Segal is as important a person as Carmel has ever had. - Agha, Laith (15 Oct 2006). "Recalling City's Quiet Leader: Barnet Segal's importance to Carmel inspires debate". McClatchy - Tribune Business News. ProQuest 463233258. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GBT Technologies

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

Non-notable company. "None of the sources is independent and secondary, and none of them does anything to show how the company is notable." So wrote Bonadea in January '23 here (limited visibility, so I've reproduced it here), about an earlier version that had a greater number of equally feeble references. The comment still applies. Googling brings many hits, but those that aren't mere mentions all seem to be mere PR puffs from GB Technology itself. Hoary (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

David Huffaker

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TESCREAL

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete (nomination). 'TESCREAL' refers to a nonsense conspiracy theory that disparages people such as Nick Bostrom without citing any sources that are credible on the question of whether Nick Bostrom is an 'evil eugenicist' or whatever. If the principals hadn't coined 'TESCREAL' the title would be Weird accusations by Torres and Gebru that everyone who talks about AI (but isn't focused on certain political priorities) is part of a worldwide conspiracy to implement an catastrophic version of eugenics and it would be obvious that it shouldn't be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The term 'TESCREAL' is simply an attempt to invoke reification bias – the idea that something with a name necessarily 'carves reality at the joints'. Jruderman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There remains significant sourcing on this article that indicates WP:N. there are mostly WP:SPS blogs that describe this as a conspiracy... Folks attempt to invoke WP:FRINGE on this mostly as they see any criticism of their pet philosophy as outrageous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still feel like the majority of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section is WP:SYNTH whereby big name people who are well-connected to ONE of these ideologies, or loosely/possibly connected to a few, are lumped into being part of the theorized TESCREAL "movement.", by either random commentators, or some journalists seeking readers.
I think these types of tenuous connections to an overarching ideology are almost WP:GOSSIP, but I guess Wikipedia's policies around famous people MAY make it acceptable: if the news covers "Elon Musk says Trump is anti-TESCREAL" and "Trump says Musk is a TESCREAList" - than we can include those sourced personal attack statements?---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH states that wikipedians can't do original research and use that. Most sourcing in article is pretty clear about directly stating person x is associated with TESCREAL. If multiple sourcing all state that these folks are criticized by person x as being part of TESCREAL, I see no reason to not include.

"Some have alleged Elon to support some TESCREAL ideals. (source 1, source 2)" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific indication of which attribution should be considered wrong? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Avatar317's concerns, and have removed the various "so-and-so is alleged to support TESCREAL because they support one of the letters" content. The rest of the article seems well-enough sourced to be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding removal of material, see [[4]].

If necessary, we can open up another talk section about it or WP:BLPN section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've reverted the indiscriminate blanking because this has already been discussed at length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLPN discussion remotely having a consensus to include what is, roughly, third-party accusations regarding an ideological bundle that the targets either disagree with or have not even deigned to acknowledge. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and the suggestion that this is a "nonsense conspiracy theory" is Jruderman's own opinion — not one that exists in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. The sources that use the term TESCREAL often relay directly the views of Timnit Gebru or Émile Torres. The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies, so making it the title of a Wikipedia article is somewhat tendentious. And the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks, often attributing opinions to people that would deny having them. Dispassionate, fact-based journalism generally avoids ideologically loaded terms like TESCREAL and uses more precise vocabulary to refer to the philosophy they are talking about. Alenoach (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has received widespread use beyond Gebru and Torres, and I mean use, not just reporting. The sources in the article prove this, especially the academic ones. A grouping can be a concept also, these are not mutually exclusive. Can you provide examples of the mentioned 'personal attacks'? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point

1) "Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres"
I don't think it would meet WP:MERGEREASON, which specifically argues against merging if:
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
- The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short
2) "The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies,"

TESCREAL meets WP:GNG due to reliable sourcing. It probably is a contentious grouping and philosophers can argue about it all they want, but that doesn't mean we get to be arbiters of whether it is valid or not, only if it is notable. And the context of personal attacks, in terms of criticizing WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, seems tenuous.

3) the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks,

This is mostly WP:BLP talk again. See above my reply to Walsh, but we've discussed that criticism of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can and should be documented.

4) "Dispassionate, fact-based journalism"

Most contemporary philosophies often do not get massive news coverage. In fact sourcing for wikipedia is only mandated to be WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT. There is no mandate for entirely unbiased sourcing and it seems onerous to demand that of TESCREAL when other philosophies regularly use sourcing that is biased towards them.

As an example, when looking at the Effective Altruism article, I count at least 9 sources from MacKaskill, the founder of EA, 3 from centre for effective altruism, at least 4 more from Peter Singer, another leader of EA, and a few opinions and philosophical arguments in journals. Its not wrong to use WP:OPINION to fill in sourcing.

In terms of reliable sourcing in the current article that discusses the term (and arguable aren't opinion pieces), see the following: [5] [6] [7] [8] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and has received widespread use in the media and also a considerable use in academic literature. The language of the nomination is highly POV and personal. The editor has not provided a credible argument for his accusation that this is a 'nonsense conspiracy theory', and the statement that the sources (which one?) does not cite 'any sources that are credible' is factually wrong. The justification of the nomination has more bias than the whole article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no conspiracy or anything fringe here. There is legitimate and significant criticism against the unifying and overlapping narratives promoted by those in the transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism communities. Gebru and Torres have quite remarkably presented a cohesive critical theory of technological utopianism in the form of a simple to remember neologism to describe the last 25 years of a campaign of distraction and misdirection that has infected entire parts of our society and prevented social change from occurring, all because a small group of tech bros believe that humanity should stop addressing our current social problems and simply resign ourselves to becoming cyborgs. This is, actually, what people like Kurzweil, Musk, and many others believe. It's a legitimate topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth noting here the presence of a keep vote made on the explicit basis of the article's usefulness as a political smear. jp×g 🗯️ 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not worth it, as there’s no political smear implied in anything I’ve said here. This discourse is part of the longstanding criticism of technological utopianism. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with the irrational basis for utopian ideas promoted by people in the tech industry which often has the result of delaying mitigation of social issues. One contemporary example that is being widely discussed by philosophers in this regard, and is part of the same body of work, is the notion of promoting space exploration, such as the kind we find in the language of Elon Musk. This language is entirely irrational, as there is no rational basis for supporting space exploration (and I consider myself a strong supporter of it). This example is directly relevant. Musk appeals to the threat of human extinction to promote colonizing Mars. He speaks of becoming a multiplanetary civilization, which is the language of mitigating the existential risk of extinction, in other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. By so doing, he gets lucrative military contracts and government subsidies, and never has to actually deliver on his utopian promise. Meanwhile, many other social issues go unaddressed without funding. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this have anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia POLICY? I understand that you like this concept as a criticism of TU, but that is NOT a policy based argument. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird comment. I just directly answered and refuted the allegation that I was supporting an article based on a political smear. I was not. In my reply, I gave an example of the criticism and how it directly pertains to the subject of the article in question. This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as stated by the nominator. Since you evidently missed it, to reiterate: it’s not a conspiracy like the nom claimed, and it’s not a political smear of any kind. It’s a relevant and timely criticism of technological utopianism based on relevant, scholarly opinions. The criteria for deletion has not been met by the nom or anyone else. Time to close. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the risk of getting dragged on Mastodon for this aside, I think this is a WP:TNT case. The prior three comments to keep were from the article's primary authors. Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months, and pretty much any thread started there is guaranteed to get a very prompt hostile response from one of them. Neutrality concerns are vaguely insinuated to be part of the conspiracy. I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK. There was a BLPN discussion about this before -- while there was only one person in the discussion who wasn't active at the article's talk page, their response was that it shouldn't have a list of people alleged as being it. Citing this discussion as some sort of definitive proof that this section needs to be in the article is very bizarre to me. But it is one of many bizarre claims that are made on a regular basis with respect to this article.

Essentially: two people claim there is some group that does XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. Cool. A few people have reported that these two people claimed there was some group that did XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. That's also cool. But what we don't have is any reliable source saying this -- they're quoting someone else saying this. It is a very fundamental distinction. For example: a certain politician (incorrectly) said another politician was born in Kenya; there are all kinds of sources that reflect this; but that source does not say the guy was born in Kenya! It says that the guy said he was. We would not use this source to say that the guy was born in Kenya: it's just common sense.

The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult, which exists for the sole purpose of denigrating people that its creators disagree with. Someone might respond to this by saying "no, you've got it all wrong, they're just describing a tendency". Yeah: they are describing a tendency... of people who they hate and think are evil, and regularly go on extended diatribes about how they are ruining everything, and created the term to be able to say negative things about them more easily. They post on social media about this Wikipedia article.

Nobody else uses this term. It is not used by the people who it allegedly describes. There is no group of people who call themselves this. The term is not ever used for neutral commentary on a "tendency" -- it's used as an insult for when people are stupid. We would not, with a straight face, write a Wikipedia article called DemonRat Party and then say, wow look, all of the sources say that they're awful people who love taxes and crime, we'd better just write about these claims at great length, because look they're notable. Imagine for a minute that a WSJ editorial and National Review columnist called the Democrats the "DemonRats", so we had RS SIGCOV: we would still not turn DemonRat Party blue because the resulting article would be bad. We would definitely not want to keep it if it were being written entirely by people who had spent several months arguing that we needed to include diverse perspectives by writing said article to be as long as possible and say as many negative things about the DemonRats as we could possibly fit in it. It would also be bad to write an article called Child molestors and/or Donald Trump supporters, WP:SYNTH together a bunch of sources criticizing each of these groups individually, and then say "this is clearly notable because we have 800 studies about child molestation, 800 studies about Trump voters, and then 2 thinkpieces saying one was the other".

Political insults can be notable, but this isn't an article about a political insult. It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) of the factual claims about politics being made by its originators. While it's possible to come up with a bunch of passing mentions where someone used this term, and a few pieces of coverage of the people who invented it saying it -- and while it may indeed manage to barely scrape past WP:DICTDEF -- it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing. What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH bordering on WP:FRANKENSTEIN, and I think that since the term (and indeed this specific Wikipedia article) is being actively used as a cudgel to own the libs, we should either make this into a stub or a redirect or an article that is very closely focused to be about the term as a term and not a dumping ground for random political commentary that happens to mention the term. jp×g 🗯️ 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point by point rebuttal of this wall of text.

"Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months"

That we can argue against bad-faith arguments and demand you point out specific places where the article is failing is not owning the article. If you cannot point to specific arguments, and keep changing why you think this article is bad indicates flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.

"I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK."

Every section on that article is concerned with TESCREAL. Looking over most sourcing, most sourcing talks for long lengths about TESCREAL.

"There was a BLPN discussion about this before"

You never answered questions about WP:PUBLICFIGURE or why it would not apply. Also, I have always found the reasoning that TESCREAL=Political Attack to be a bit flawed. By that logic, the section about Transhumanism#New_eugenics would indicate every transhumanist is a eugenicist.

"Essentially: two people claim"

The Kenya Birther conspiracy can be attributed to Donald Trump, then we can use overwhelming sourcing to state its false. Do you have overwhelming sourcing to state that TESCREAL is a conspiracy that balances out the dozens of sourcing that explains it? In the past folks have attempted to completely delete large portions of this article on the basis of a single blog page.

"The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult"

Unless you find a source that suggests this, beyond the blog post of the philosophers that are criticized by Gebru and Torres, this argument is unsubstantiated. Even if it was a political insult, we have plenty of those documented, along with alleged people who have epitomised the political insult.

" Nobody else uses this term."

There are close to 25 sources in the article that all use the term. The original AfD was deleted for notability, but since then the term has come into resurgence with significant sourcing.

"it's used as an insult for when people are stupid"

Sourcing and the article says nothing about intelligence of the people who are alleged to be TESCREALISTS.

"It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) "

Find the critical information to criticize the term or to justify a policy such as WP:FALSEBALANCE. So far, most sourcing indicates that people take this criticism from Gebru and Torres as actual philosophical arguments, not just some petty insult.

"it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing."

Again, provide a list of why all the sourcing is bad?

"What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH "

Every sentence is cited and attributed. We do no original research. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info. JPxG has:

continued to assert that I insult everyone I disagree with on the talk page (I was confused tbh?) [9]
that Joaquim has falsely accused editors of COIs on the talk page [10]
and now has suggested I and Joaquim have been WP:OWNING the page by continuing to edit, discuss controversial changes

He has thrown out constant walls of inconsequential texts and vague WP:WIKILAWYERING that take time to debunk. I'm happy to work point by point, but much of this remains frustrating waste of time. I'm a firm believer that all editors are biased, myself included, but much of this has become less of dealing with the article, and more WP:FORUM behavior that may be worth ignoring in the future. For any closer, this latest comment by JPxG could well be considered WP:FORUM instead of actually based on real wiki policy and discarded.

I want actual sourcing that proves me wrong, so we can include it in this article with the criticism it needs, like all philosophical arguments. (see my edits where I add criticism here [11][[12] [13] [14]) I am willing to engage in good-faith discussion, instead of blindly thrown out wikiterms that dont apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed permission to type three paragraphs of text at an AfD. As for your "points" -- you were given specific objections to specific pieces of content, some different times, by some different people -- why don't you go read through the old threads? I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it -- especially when your response to a several-long-paragraph post is to insult it for being a wall of text.

I agree completely that trying to engage on the talk page with you and Joachim (its top two editors by a wide margin) is a frustrating waste of time. This is why I don't think the article is salvageable. jp×g 🗯️ 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - from WP:PROFRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." - I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [15], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fracket

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

This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM). This belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Fashion.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and Sororities Rublamb (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contested the PROD because there are enough sources and potential sources for a much fuller article. WP:NOTNEO indicates that exceptions are for a neologism that receives significant coverage in multiple sources. Major coverage is included in New York Magazine and publications at Dartmouth, Penn State, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Bucknell, and Syracuse. The coverage in college magazines and newspapers represents diverse locations and dates. Frackets are also mentioned in and sourced to a scholarly journal (Qualitative Sociology), two books (one by the editors of Seventeen magazine), Philadelphia Magazine, and CNET. Inclusion of the term's relationship to a company and literary inclusions suggest a potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. Its inclusion in an academic study gives credibility to the term beyond a neologism. Rublamb (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Małecki

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

Equestrian who does not satisfy sports notability. There are two references. The first one is a database entry, and database entries do not establish sports notability. The second is an obituary, which may count toward general notability but is the only significant source. He competed in the Olympics, but does not have Olympic notability because he did not receive a medal.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ma/marek-malecki-1.html	A Wayback Machine copy of a database entry of sports statistics	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	hejnakon.pl	Obituary in Polish equestrian magazine.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

The Heymann criterion is to find additional sources within six days.

Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find better coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Poland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify precisely per Robert McClenon. BD2412 T 00:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for Draftify outcome?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No one is going to do anything with this in draftspace – it will go untouched and deleted. Focusing on the source, it is over 600 words on him and mentions he was a multiple time national champion. It is SIGCOV. We do not have access to Polish newspaper sources from the time, but still have a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT. I don't think this should be draftified – why should it not be kept? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the source found and Enos733. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obituary points to a reliable source. "Poniżej tekst o Marku Małeckim z książki Mistrzowie Polski wydanej w roku 2010 przez Akademię Jeździecką:" in English - "Below is a text about Marek Małecki from the book Champions of Poland published in 2010 by the Equestrian Academy." I think that work is online here: https://pcbj.pl/0496-2/ > https://olimpijski.pl/olimpijczycy/malecki-marek-wladyslaw/. On that page, it has this bibliography with multiple sources: "Bibl.: Głuszek, Leksykon 1999, s. 267; Pawlak, Olimpijczycy, s. 163; Habinowska, Ludzie i konie, s. 227, 305, 403; Jeźdźcy olimpijscy, s. 67-69; Kronika Sportu, s.900; Księga sportu, s. 480; Porada, Igrzyska, s. 884; Baza danych Muzeum Łowiectwa i Jeździectwa w Warszawie; Wywiad środowiskowy" "Głuszek, Leksykon 1999, p. 267; Pawlak, Olympians, p. 163; Habinowska, People and horses, pp. 227, 305, 403; Olympic Riders, pp. 67-69; Chronicle of Sport, p.900; Sports Book, p. 480; Advice, Games, p. 884; Database of the Hunting and Riding Museum in Warsaw; Community interview." Without access to this material, I cannot really go further, but my sense is that sufficient sources are available. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above - and agreeing with BeanieFan11's comments on draftification.Ingratis (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boardmasters Festival line-ups

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Article is a huge magnet for WP:FANCRUFT that currently cites only one source. Only verifiable source to back the information is a WP:SPS: the website itself. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and United Kingdom. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only 1 source and that does not establish notability. Dympies (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unsourced. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although largely unsourced at the moment, it is clear that enough sources do exist to sustain this page (I've already managed to reference the first two years, and it's obvious to me from a quick internet search that there will be sources for other years too). It being potential fancruft does not speak to whether it should be deleted - notability is established by the reliable sources which exist elsewhere. Overall, yes, this page is poorly written, but I think that's a surmountable problem. I'll keep cleaning it up in the meantime, but I do think this one's worth keeping. Gazamp (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't Woodstock by a long shot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that the self-published source has been removed and better sources are being added, I think this discussion should primarily focus on whether the subject is notable (i.e. by assessing the sources). WP:FANCRUFT itself is not a rationale for deletion. Gazamp (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvements by @Gazamp, there are many WP:RS discussing the line-ups of the notable Boardmasters Festival - and the content may be due it's own page per WP:SPINOFF. ResonantDis_tortion 07:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now that work has been done on adding improved sources I don't see it would be controversial for this article to stay. Editing84 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after article changes. Please review current article after additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 8 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020s United States housing bubble

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

Prod by Michaelmalak stated "no WP:RS on the Internet call it a "bubble" let alone the listed references. Experts expect prices to be elevated due to shortage that is unlikely to get resolved. If it doesn't pop, it's not a bubble. It's a high plateau. The situation is already discussed at [16]; it does not need a dedicated article." An IP redirected the page, but removed the tag in the process. I concur with the prod – there is little evidence that high prices are in fact a bubble, and this does not need a separate page for very little substance. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree and after flagging a number of issues inline, they still have not been addressed and so support deleting it. Not yet found any salvageable pieces yet for other articles to incorporate. Superb Owl (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Housing crisis maybe, not a bubble. Fox News and a government website aren't what we're looking for as far as sources go. Plenty of mentions about the increase in home prices since Covid, but none using this term. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [17] or [18], neither of which talk about a bubble. Oaktree b (talk) 22:01, 8 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.

Matrix field

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

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

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

Comment: The article was originally created in 2016 by User:Skpandey12, citing a 2015 paper by one S. K. Pandey that was later removed for being published in a predatory journal. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the term were only used in mathematics, I'd suggest redirecting it to matrix ring. But a lot of the uses (maybe the majority) are in physics, where matrix field theory is a subject. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:TNT. There are potential sources on the matrix representation of fields, such as Wardlaw's "Matrix representation of finite fields" (Math. Mag. 1994), but I think the article would need different content at a different title, so we might as well just delete the one we have regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Krol

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

declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Brazil. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author has confirmed a connection with Benji Krol's manager, where they said: its just that i was emailing with krol's manager and i wanted it to be perfect in this comment on their user talk page. Svampesky (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy that is something I was not aware of, I just edited the page and moved because the person does have notability. 30 million followers on TikTok is not a low amount in my point of view. But as I said I was not aware of that. And I also have nothing to do with that author just to be clear. Meio2934 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here TikTok He does have notability in the public. Charlie D’amelio also came from the same source Meio2934 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of TikTok followers has absolutely no influence on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your assertion that TikTok follower count has no bearing on notability, it’s all in perspective, for you someone could have no notability in your eyes. But in someone’s else’s yes. While follower count alone does not define notability in its entirety, it can significantly contribute to a person’s influence and public recognition. For example, individuals like Charli D’Amelio have used her substantial TikTok followings to build successful careers, attract media attention, and secure partnerships with major brands.

Follower count serves as a metric for reach and impact, both of which are essential elements of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not...please read WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, not in it’s entirely but they are. Someone can have notability without follower and can also have with it. Meio2934 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you are saying whatsoever, but follower do count as a form of notability. Not enough for a Wikipedia page but it is a form of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we are discussing notability in Wikipedia terms here! Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very weak sourcing and major WP:BLP problems. Restricting attention to the best available sources give us a WP:BLP1E situation at best. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've made an effort to remove the poorly sourced content, including the removal of non-notable names who were accused of crimes, editorializing, original research, and content sourced from user-generated content. The article is a WP:BLP1E as the only reliable sourcing that would establish notability for Krol is about allegations of child sexual misconduct, with one source labelling it sexual assault by saying: accused of sexually assaulting a minor online. As it stands, the article is dangerously close to becoming an WP:ATTACK page. I think this AfD should be withdrawn and the article WP:G10'd. Svampesky (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is very poorly sourced. And I removed the allegations section per BLP, poor sourcing. We don't include allegations of that nature without high-quality sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl

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

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

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

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

Ritobrota Dey

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

Current referencing is all WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE finds the same. Coincidentally, the majority is all churnalism from TOI. I would expect other publications to write more about her in-depth if she was notable for the roles. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"May be considered notable...." Can you show the "reliable" sources to prove notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify On the surface, it seems the TV shows they've been part of are notable-enough, and they've had recurring/starring roles in them, which IMO lets it escape outright deletion - that said, the article in its current state isn't ready for mainspace, per NEWSORGINDIA concerns. Draftify it and let editors find better sourcing. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V

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

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

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

Allan Ivo Steel

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

Aside from dying in World War I, this player does not seem to rise to WP:NCRICKET. I already removed some information about his brother and his mother, as they lacked sources. The article is looking pretty bare at this point. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Found a book describing him as a "first class cricketeer" [19] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [20]. Just don't have enough on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in plenty of book sources, in quite some detail. AA (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where, we don't have any listed? Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War (which I have) goes into great detail on him. Wisden has an obituary on him in its 1918 edition, which also goes into a good degree of detail. I'd imagine there's coverage in newspapers from the time too, The Times certainly mentions him following his death. AA (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fine and I appreciate the additional resources added, but, does that still make him a "notable" player in the eyes of WP:NCRICKET? I'm hardly knowledgeable of cricket, does

"he represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and also Middlesex in two first-class matches in 1912."

counts as "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Lake

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

While there are a number of Neighborhoods in Houston articles, this particular one looks to be more of a promo page for an everyday housing development, rather than an actual geo/socio region. In fact the header alone says it is within "the greater Inwood Area". I don't think this particular collection of townhomes is notable in any way. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also:
- previous speedy deletion in 2008, which was reverted by the page creator
- previous speedy deletion of "Forrest lake townhomes" for "blatant advertising"
- other questionable contributions from this particular editor
Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Forrest Lake" seems to be a common name for places all over the world and North America... Nothing found about this particular version that makes it oustanding... 50yr old property development that doesn't seem any much different than any other suburb, pretty much anywhere in the US or Canada... Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A housing subdivision for which independent RS coverage is limited to a local interest profile in the Houston Chronicle. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Hundred

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

There are only two articles worth of media coverage on this record as of writing this and neither of them are even long enough to prove its notability. An alternative to deletion in this case would be to draftify this article and wait for more lengthy and meaningful coverage about this album. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and South Korea. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom, there is not enough coverage to meet WP:NALBUMS criterion 1 or to indicate that the subject meets the other criteria. Given that it was a recent surprise release and that the artist's other work has been covered by Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, Far Out Magazine, The Fader, and Paste, I think it can be reasonably assumed that significant coverage will start appearing soon that can be used to build a draft until the notability criteria to move to the mainspace is met. Second best option would be merging the article's content to Parannoul and creating a redirect to there. LeMeilleurMiel (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell (upcoming film)

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF, draftify until the film receives WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY2008 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep located two new sources to corroborate filming and post-production on the film, latter source also confirming multiple release deals sealed. Succinct to continue existing in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamic Moon

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources are cited and I was unable to find any with a Google search. I was also unable, with a Google search, to find an entry in a reliable dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOR and WP:GNG. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented in the last AfD - which was only a few months ago. Looking myself this does seem to be a very common and well known idea even outside of actual believer circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contao

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

All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the deletion. Contao is an OpenSource CMS like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3.

What would it take to keep the article online?

Here, for example, is an article about Contao:

https://phpconference.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-contao/

or here are some statistics from buildwith

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Contao 2001:A61:5018:4B01:D4E2:6152:5CC6:5C09 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaseen Abdalla

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

Does not meet any of the criteria listed for track & field and long-distance running. (1) did not finish top 8 of the European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons. (2) did not finish in the top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition. (3) Have not won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships or Youth World Championships. The list continues. Also, 2 out of the 4 sources used are sport-aggregate websites that collect statistics about any and every athlete. In the 3rd ref, he was mentioned in passing. He might be good at the Youth level, but he did not win any international events. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. The Sudanese flagbearer at the 2024 Olympics. Significant coverage here and here in accordance with WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two sources above are fine for notability. Rest are also helpful Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madhur Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madhur_Sharma. Still doesn't fit WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG BoraVoro (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why did you choose AfD instead of WP:G4. GrabUp - Talk 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:N. Youknow? (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Meise

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

Sources are about the company; fails to meet WPANYBIO; COI (created by the employee - see the name of the author). BoraVoro (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digiboxx

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

Lack of reliable sources, notability and media coverage. BoraVoro (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 OFC U-16 Men's Championship squads

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN as collection of non-notable children. It lacks independent sources and it doesn't help that is so incomplete either. Moreover, there exists ample precedent to delete youth squads across continents and sports at AFD/2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads, AFD/2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads, AFD/2016 South American U-17 Women's Championship squads, AFD/2017 AFF U-18 Youth Championship squads, AFD/2015 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship squads, AFD/2009 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads, AFD/2011 African U-17 Championship squads, AFD/2013 SAFF U-16 Championship squads. Geschichte (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A festival of red links. Only a select few players will reach WP:GNG. Sources measuring the squads must be included in the main article, and the precedents presented by the Geschichte support the deletion. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other AFDs listed in nom. Just a ton of redlinks which isn't useful or pass WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.

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

Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic and thus doesn't count toward GNG at all.
And while the three remaining footnotes are proper media coverage, they still aren't building a particular strong case for inclusion: they're all just going "Newspaper, Date" without providing the title of any specific content in that newspaper on that date, and two of them are from the local daily newspaper and thus aren't counting for anything toward the ORGDEPTH test.
So there's only one footnote here ("National" Post 1967, which is really the Financial Post since the National Post didn't exist under that name until the 1990s) that's starting to build a proper case for notability, but just one hit of extralocal coverage isn't enough to get this over ORGDEPTH all by itself.
This just doesn't state anything about the co-op that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Canadian media.[21], [22], [23]. Last one's probably the best. That and the Financial Post article should be enough for notability; it was one of the first such residences in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the Financial Post article [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I'm struggling to see how after reading the 1967 Financial Post article, that User:Bearcat nominated this. That's very in-depth coverage 55-years ago, and easy enough to find more recent articles, as has been done above. Perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is absolutely clear and unequivocal that passage of it requires a lot more than just one article. So there's no conflict that should be difficult to understand: Bearcat nominated this because one acceptable source is not enough all by itself. The only thing one source precludes is speedy deletion; one source is not even close to enough to immunize an article against an AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are now more news articles added to the article. These include the Montreal Gazette, CTV News, and CBC News. With the passage of time, more can be added to the article. Thanks also for not deleting this article until I can get my hands on a copy of Leslie Cole's 2008 academic volume, Under Construction: a history of co-operative housing in Canada. Thank you. (Dw861) — Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeisel number

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

I could not find more sources about the Zeisel number. Most of the engine searches as in Google Books or Google Scholar shows the Zeisel number is related to chemistry instead of mathematics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I think OEIS is reliable, I am unwilling to admit it as evidence for notability for sequences (too indiscriminate), and MathWorld is worse (not as reliable and too packed with neologisms). Everything else is unreliable web pages and forum postings. We have no actual publications on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The OEIS is reliable but indiscriminate, so merely appearing there isn't enough to justify an article here. MathWorld has a history of not being good enough (I gathered some examples here). A literature search doesn't find anything we can use. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 8 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 delete‎. This was speedied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín Amparo

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

Vice president but no reliable sources nor any WP ANYBIO points to meet. BoraVoro (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Dominican Republic, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and SALT See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvín Sántana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvín A. Santana, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Amparo Santana. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 8 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.

Yam Kaspers Anshel

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

A first runner-up Miss Israel who did not place in the Miss Universe pageant doesn't merit an article. All I'm seeing is "What 7 Miss Universe contestants look like without makeup on" in Business Insider India. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Israel. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcats

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crawlies

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cosgrove_Hall_Films#1980s: for now; but some sources seem to show this could deserve a standalone page (like https://c3z3.com/www.animatormag.com/issue-17/issue-17-page-23/ which is based on an interview but offers comments on the production), so not opposed to Keep -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venkataramane Gowda

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. None of the positions occupied is NPOL-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Political candidate, not showing much notability beyond that. This is typical [25] coverage of any candidate in an election, to inform the electors, but nothing notable about standing for office. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Rubin (actor)

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

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

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

Royal and Merciful Society of the Bearer of Medals and Awards of Belgium

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

Lacks notability, all the sources are expired domains, Wix websites and Wordpress blogs. Seems to be yet another title mill organization. They seem to have a Facebook group which lists their PO BOX address as being in Washington State US, further increasing my skepticism of this being a legitimate org. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Royalty and nobility, and Belgium. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like an honours mill, but even worse is the sourcing. WP is not a place for honours mill promotion. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Concept

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing relies entirely on interviews with people connected with the company, announcements, or mentions in passing due to their involvement in organising events, those sources do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just wanted to contribute as the writer of the article. I wrote it after reading about the company's focus on work in the black diaspora, which aligned with a wiki project I've been involved with on and off. I did look closely at the sources for this article, because I know the ones I was using to establish notability (references 1-3) have interview content within them, but in looking at each article overall it seemed that there was significant content outside of the interview quotations, and that that content contained independent analysis- including looking at the wider industry context they are operating in, with statistics etc included in that. I also looked at the publications and writers to make sure they were both independent from the subject and engage in fact checking as part of their editorial process. I know 100% interview content does not establish notability, but I feel it is fairly uncommon for independent articles on companies or the people behind them not to structure their articles around a fair amount of interview content. The fact the company were also included in a way that was more than a passing mention in other major stories on Afrobeats, like the Rolling Stone one, suggested to me notability within the Afrobeats industry. Anyway, I just wanted to engage and outline why I used the sources I did. Thanks Thebookstamper (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to specific paragraphs in the sources that contain in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a bit messy, I'm doing it on the fly, so haven't gone through all the sources. Appreciate it might not be the most forensic exercise because of that... Thanks for your time.

In the Pulse article:

(Citing these as examples of content about the company, not directly generated by something the company has said, or paraphrasing. They may reference something said by the company, but as I see it are writing their own analysis around that. Or the company is then responding to a point made by the publication.)

Section: ‘The show which became a lesson’

Coupled with the rise of social media, that show contributes to how Ugeh now perceives social media as a marketing tool. These days, his team studies social media based on demographics. Some artists are stronger on Facebook than Twitter or TikTok while others are bigger on Instagram. Some artists are also big on the four. An artist’s audience determines social media marketing and engagement is a key metric for measurement. While Ugeh admits that social media has aided event companies, he admits that social media phenomena should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Section: ‘What’s the process of organising a show at Duke Concept’

Sometimes, unplanned artists also approach the team through their booking agents The team then uses a data-driven approach to see where the artists can sell and whether Duke Concept would be willing to tour those places. These days, the events happen in mid-range markets to big markets. It’s unlikely that Duke Concept would take an Afrobeat artist to a small and predominantly white market like Milwaukee, Wisconsin at this time [...]

It makes sense. The attitude of a city like Boston to touring and nightlife would be much different to that of smaller markets. The pulse of young attendees also matters as much as their priorities. It's more likely that a 21-year-old, who was bred in New York would be willing to spend $200 on a ticket than his equivalent in a smaller market. Ugeh offers it from a perspective of comparative analysis, not with factual totality. As much as urban culture influences pop culture, the rising state of Afrobeats suggests that the racial spread of America must be taken into consideration while planning an event for an Afrobeats artist.

Section: 'Pricing'

(In response to Ugeh referencing fair pricing set by Duke Concept):

But pricing also depends on the format of the venue. As much as Duke Concept might charge $250 for front row seats in a seated theatre, the people at the back might pay as low as $30. While ticketing is already booming, secondary ticketing has grown a life of its own. Market Watch reports that, “The global Secondary Tickets market size is projected to reach USD 2755.5 million by 2027, from USD 1502 million in 2020, at a CAGR of 9.1% between 2021-2027.” Ugeh believes that there is nothing anybody can do about it. He believes that the best way to fight it is to encourage people to purchase their tickets early enough, discourage hoarding of tickets and to always make tickets available at the venue.

WMV article:

(Including this para as an example of referencing another source- an interview given to a different publication, not their own):

The Nigerian moved to New York City with his family a decade ago and shortly after; launched the company. In the early days tried to do an Afro-Caribbean showcase with headliners Timaya and Mavado in 2014, he told Pulse it was a “flop”. He references that show as growing pains but one lesson he learned was that; Caribbean events are marketed differently from African events- mainly Afro-music require digital promotions while at the time reggae- dancehall events required linear advertising, along with street “posters”and guerrilla marketing.

Rolling Stone:

Now, there’s plenty more evidence that Afrobeats is connecting in the U.S. Last October, Burna Boy became the first African solo artist to headline the Hollywood Bowl; this year, he’s slated to play Madison Square Garden, the first headlining performance for a Nigerian musician at the storied New York venue. Duke Concept, the production company behind the shows, was founded by Osita Ugeh in 2013, two years after he moved to the United States from Nigeria. The business initially had to be scrappy, producing concerts at small nightclubs and DIY warehouses — some of the only venues available to Afropop artists at the time.

Today, things look much different. In 2018, Duke Concept secured a partnership with Live Nation, and last year spearheaded the U.S. tours of African acts such as Wizkid, Omah Lay, Olamide, Adekunle Gold, and Diamond Platnumz.

Billboard:

Osita “Duke” Ugeh, who, as CEO of promoter Duke Concept, has been booking U.S. tours for African acts like Burna for the last decade. (He secured Burna’s first sold-out U.S. show in April 2019 at Harlem’s Apollo Theater — where he again made history as the first Afrobeats artist to sell out the venue.) But as Ugeh knows well, Burna’s arrival at the Garden was far from preordained. Since founding Duke Concept in 2013, he has struggled to get artists like him into big rooms. Now, as Afrobeats continues to expand its reach, Ugeh says he and his 15-person team are starting to see that reflected in the kind of venues the genre’s artists can play: He has gone from booking two to three U.S. tours for Afrobeats artists a year to booking two to three a month, with Davido, Tiwa Savage, Rema and more scheduled for later this year.

When his “One Night in Space” show at the Garden was announced in December, Duke Concept launched a joint venture with Live Nation, expanding upon a relationship that began in 2018, when Burna himself approached the company about a tour deal. He insisted on bringing Ugeh along; subsequently, UTA’s Christian Bernhardt, Burna’s touring agent, introduced Ugeh to Live Nation’s director of touring, Andy Messersmith. Thebookstamper (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and edit. Thanks to Thebookstamper for the comprehensive response but I don't agree that the extracted paragraphs provide sufficient in-depth information about the company. The Pulse article extracts are either commenting on or repeating comments made by the company or providing stats about the secondary ticketing market. The WMV article talks about the founder (not the company) and does not have any in-depth information about the company. The Rolling Stone article has a (generic) sentence describing the company and also repeats an announcement about securing a partnership - neither sufficiently detailed. The Billboard article is again about the founder or the partnership, not the company and does not provide any "Independent Content" by way of analysis/commentary/etc, just repeats information already provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, please change this !vote into a comment, it is double dipping with your nome statement. Mach61 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with the nom that none of the sources that cover this subject in detail are sufficiently independent; w/r/t Thebookstamper’s argument that the articles which have interview content have non-interview content as well, I would note that just because a statement isn't in quotation marks doesn't mean it was a journalist's own independent writing; it may be a paraphrase of what the subject said during the interview, or information provided by the subject in a press kit or such. Mach61 09:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passed the guideline WP:GNG very clearly, as i have understood it. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faizi Dehlvi, the appropriate guidelines for companies includes WP:NCORP which sets out the requirements for sourcing. Can you point to 2 sources (including paragraph/page) where the content meets the requirements? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes notability guidelines for Organization.Have a look into this article [26] Sanzeb (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanzeb, I've already looked (and commented) on the Rolling Stone article and it makes exactly two mentions of the company, and nothing that you would call in-depth about the company and also relies entirely on information provided by Ugeh and the company, so not "Independent Content" either. Can you explain the content in that article you say passes WP:NCORP? Also, to pass NCORP, multiple sources are required. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also comment on how you popped up after over 2 years of not editing here (and before that, hardly any editing at all), just to !vote at this AfD? Not exactly an area for inexperienced editors to participate in. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t especially agree with the recent keep contributions, but would say Keep for this one, looking at the main refs- pulse and wmv articles are more than only interviews, following discussion above. Or Draftify if not- maybe it’s borderline right now but could be more notable with time. Editing84 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing84 it isn't just "interviews", we need in-depth "Independent Content" which isn't simply regurgitating company/exec provided info. Nothing in Pulse and WMV that isn't repeating company info that I can see - what bits are you referring to? I've no objections to Draftify either. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous fictional animals

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

This list is going too far into WP:INDISCRIMINATE and doesn't pass WP:NLIST. (1) Most listed animals don't have stand-alone articles, making their inclusion of "notable" fictional animals quite doubtful. (2) It's "miscellaneous" fictional species, i.e. most listed animals don't have anything in common besides being of an uncommon species, i.e. List of Xs not in list of A, B or C. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems very much a technical WP:SPLIT purely based on Wikipedia-internal considerations: We have many Lists of fictional animals, and those whose type does not appear on any of them land here as "miscellaneous". The topic "fictional animals" is clearly notably. So if we want to keep the individual entries of "miscellaneous" animals out of Lists of fictional animals for reasons of readability, this would be a WP:SIZESPLIT and therefore the notability requirement would be fullfilled by the parent topic. Personally, I prefer to merge (the relevant content) completely to Lists of fictional animals.
As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE criticism, first of all it makes little sense to me that this list here duplicates list-links from Lists of fictional animals. So if kept separately, these should be trimmed. And otherwise defining an inclusion critereon solves this issue, the most simple being to only include notable fictional animals (not listed elsewhere). This may mean a major trim, but there would still be a lot of entries left for this list to make sense as a list of the purpose of navigation. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the article of entries without stand-alone articles per your suggestion (though I have not removed the links to the other lists). TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I have now removed the list-links as well. TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TompaDompa: The list is now down to the content I wanted to preserve in one way or another, an inclusion critereon is not only spelled out but also implemented, so that this is in no way WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Size-wise the list is now in my view both long enough to be viable as a stand-alone article and small enough to be fitted into Lists of fictional animals, so this comes down to an editorial decision. Daranios (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect if unsourced information doesn't fit in an existing article the answer is to clean it up, not dump it into an article that fails Wikipedia policies. This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE segmentation of a badly referenced list. Jontesta (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not well sourced, so it should not be merged. This topic does not meet LISTN and the entries have barely anything in common. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontesta and QuicoleJR: By that argument, all lists about fictional animals I've seen should be deleted, because sourcing is very much the same as here. Simply trimming things down to blue-linked entries solves the problem of sourcing, as the information is then present at another Wikipedia article. A list for the purpose of navigation does not strictly need references for that reason. And then, things are longer WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Daranios (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think "miscellaneous fictional animals" meets LISTN, and the souring was only an argument against a merge, not an argument for deleting. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I was also concerned about merging, not keeping: Lists of fictional animals also does not have any sourcing, naturally, and does not need it because its purpose is navigation. Ideally it allows anyone to successively browse to any fictional animal featured on Wikipedia. Except if this list here is deleted, it doesn't anymore. Any fictional animal which does not happen to belong to a larger group, where it was decided to have a separate list, would then be excluded from this type of navigation. I believe that would be less-than-ideal, an (albeit small) disservice to the usability of Wikipedia. So what would be the reason not to find a way to make the blue-linked entries here available in this navigation scheme? Daranios (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the examples in WP:INDISCRIMINATE is even remotely applicable here. Deletion votes need to have proper reasoning. — Timwi (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rampant deletionism at its finest. As already noted, there are lists of fictional animals such as dogs, cats, etc. To just remove all of the animals that happen to be of a species that is rarer in fiction just because you don’t like the term miscellaneous for being “indiscriminate” is just silly. Stop the deletionism, keep Wikipedia complete and useful!! — Timwi (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This was a WP:SPLIT. We should really not dictate that stuff be split out of an article due to size constraints and then twenty years later mosey up and say "uh, why is there this lil lonely article sitting here, better delete it". jp×g 🗯️ 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article massively reduced since nomination, only list fictional animals with their own Wikipedia articles that aren't listed in the other lists at Category:Lists of fictional animals by type. Dream Focus 17:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:NLIST TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just merge it to lists of fictional animals, in its current state. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to lists of fictional animals per TompaDompa's changes. A few sources aren't a pass for multiple WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists, but one main list would probably meet WP:NLIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG. After the reductions during the AFD this is fine. It might be possible to merge to Lists of fictional animals, but the naive approach would not improve that article; there is no need to mandate such a merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaka Maliro

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability in any context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to: Music_of_Malawi#Lucius_Banda,_Evison_Matafale_and_Mlaka_Maliro I found lots of GNG. WP:NMUSICIAN states that:

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [27]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label: subject has released 13 albums under the renowed and the first band in Malawi, the Zembani Band, owned by Lucius Banda [28]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/, [29]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-rolls-back-hands-of-time/ . I found this that talks about subject. I also found records in printed books, see here, and this in Dutch , this too, etc. To me this provides GNG that can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Youth Development Foundation

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

Non-notable NGO, probably does good work, but that's not our notability definition. This was declined a few times at AfC, then recreated directly in the main space. The sources are just press releases and therefore don't come even close to satisfying WP:ORG / WP:GNG, and BEFORE finds nothing better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Jdcomix (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pleasing organisation, fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nečas (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG without significant coverage. I searched on Google and only the ice hockey player came up. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael James Birchell

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL non-notable soldier, one of 8 killed in the same battle in Operation Bribie. Sources are largely name listings or about the battle rather than him Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography ([30]) is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding wording of WP:ANYBIO#3 states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Its a presumption not a rule. I read the entry and don't see anything notable there. I wonder if it lists all 500+ Australians killed in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes it is a presumption, but the ADB entry provides quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV (note that WP:THREE is a suggestion, and one very high quality source is sufficient). I'd say that is presumption met. Curbon7 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and I'd note the comment below, there is no good reason why he is even in the ADB. Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the notion of assessing notability by what participants feel is or is not notable, rather than by the strength of sourcing. There is an debate to be had about whether or not the ADB entry is alone sufficient, but I think the argument I just don't think it's notable is a very poor one. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are questioning why he is even listed in the ADB and so questioning its quality as a source. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly something worth bringing up at WT:Notability (people)/WP:RSN, if there is a pattern. Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally I'd support the inclusion of anyone with an entry in a national dictionary of biography, but I'm really struggling to see why he was included. Just a soldier who was killed in action. What distinguishes him from the millions of others? Or even the many thousands of other Australian casualties of war? Is he intended to be representative of the ordinary men who were killed in Vietnam? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the notability either, appears to be just another soldier doing his job. Not sure why he's listed in the national biography, can you pay to get featured in it? Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Operation Bribie Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Xiangbing

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

Significant coverage not found Runmastery (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and China. Runmastery (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a CV (and not a very good one, at that), with zero evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found about this person, the source used isn't acceptable. Very easy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: definitely fails notability criteria, no reliable sources. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just blocked one of the editors trying to hijack this, so let’s finish the job. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matching individual found at zh:一帶一路; can't even verify the dude's name, much less search for Chinese language sources about him. Folly Mox (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7. Jdcomix (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardholder Information Security Program

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

Single ref in About section; Visa program established in 2001 and then shut down in 2004, receiving little WP:SIGCOV. Cursory Google search appears that it was revived later under PCI DSS, but nothing that would pass WP:GNG for this specific program. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Editor: Please don't delete this page. It's an important reference to a set of security guidelines that are still often referenced. Informing people that it's been superceeded by another security rule (PCI) is really valuable. Please do not remove it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.159.90 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luxair destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP. Redundant.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company on a randomly-selected date (January 2023) of no significance. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. That this is so is clearly indicated by the labelling of many services as "seasonal" (i.e., these were not actually destinations served in January 2023, but are anyway included).

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources required by WP:ORGIND. Instead the article is almost entirely cited to Luxair's website, trade press (see WP:TRADES), and local news reports (which fail WP:AUD) about company announcements and press-conferences. See also WP:MILL and WP:ORGTRIV - reports of the opening and closing of business locations and services are just run-of-the-mill trivia.

The page is redundant because the development of Luxair's services, to the extent that the subject is encyclopaedic, is already very adequately summarised in Luxair#History. FOARP (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Luxembourg. FOARP (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encyclopaedic list. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hale

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

Appears to fail Bio notability. IgelRM (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taharror

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lebanon. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiites Against War

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

No in depth cogerage in secondary reliable sources, probably too soon. According to the references, so far this is about a Facebook campaign and there's just not that much coverage, or reliable sources supporting this is an "emerging movement". MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Lebanon. MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makhna

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Can be redirected to Yo Yo Honey Singh. Charliehdb (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. Charliehdb (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Villager

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Can be redirected to Yo Yo Honey Singh. Charliehdb (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. Charliehdb (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "the highest grossing Punjabi album of all time" sounds like a claim to notability, but is unfortunately sourced to a listicle that just doesn't have the ring of rigour to it. If there's alternative sources for that claim, I'd be tempted to say keep on that basis. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loca (Honey Singh song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Can be redirected to Yo Yo Honey Singh. Charliehdb (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. Charliehdb (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafirul Azmi bin Suhaimi

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

Fails GNG and CREATIVE. Only one RS in references, BEFORE has no further RS available. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, and Malaysia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXBE-FM

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Agree with the nom that none of the references in the article pass WP:NORG/WP:ORGIND. The best is the Sun Star reference but that is still just an interview. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE either. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 5 talks about part of the station's history and programming. Source 3, 6 and 7 talk about part of its programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the reliable sources indicated (except Source 4, which is just a blog). ASTIG 😎🙃 13:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED blog. Source 3 is a promo for a music event that has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of a former DJ for the station. Source 5 is a profile of a former DJ that has a single passing mention of the station. Source 6 is likewise a single passing mention. Source 7 is WP:PROMO for an event the station is taking part in, not independent coverage. In sum, not a single source qualifies for WP:GNG. Furthermore, the stricter WP:NCORP is the test the applies here, not GNG. [[WP Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Průša

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources refer to sports results except for one, which is an interview with the person concerned. Searching the internet for "Karel Průša" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated Bedřich Slaný. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Competing or even winning at the pinnacle of a sport, whether Grand Prix or Olympics, is not a valid inclusion criterion. SPORTCRIT requires GNG be met and for a GNG-contributing source to be cited in the article. If the "Speedway A-Z" source is not SPS then that would probably satisfy SPORTCRIT, but multiple sources are needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meet WP:NSPORT He has notable achievements in speedway racing, including a silver medal in the Czechoslovak Individual Championship and participation in the 1962 Speedway World Team Cup. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify - basically per JoelleJay. We've rejected the idea of automatic notability in WP:NSPORTS2022, and the assertion that this person is notable simply for having competed in the Speedway World Cup is basically that. Similarly a silver medal in a national-level tournament, in a minor sport and relatively small competitive environment, should also not be an automatic pass for notability. These criteria were only ever intended as an indication that WP:GNG was likely passed - if doubt is cast on GNG being passed we still need to find sources, and none have been found so far. Delete can also work but it appears that some people are willing to put in the work to get this over the line though to be honest I don't see that happening as likely. FOARP (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedřich Slaný

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to passing mentions and sports results. Searching the internet for "Bedřich Slaný" shows other people with the same name. FromCzech (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Czech version cs:Bedřich Slaný of the article says (without a reference) that he died on 11 October 1980. Perhaps a news article about him or an obituary in a reliable source was published shortly after his death. Someone with access to Czechoslovak news media from 1980 might want to search for references from October 1980. The Wikipedia Library would also be worth searching. If you find one or more useful references, please add them to the Czech version cs:Bedřich Slaný as well., Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I meant in general that if for Olympic sports the participation of an athlete in the Olympics is not a criterion of notability, the participation of a speedway racer in the Speedway World Cup is also not a criterion of notability. The sources you have added here and elsewhere do not demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria.
Redirect to 1962 Speedway World Team Cup may be an alternative to deletion. FromCzech (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, we do not have sources demonstrating GNG is met, only passing mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event. WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid notability criterion. NSPORT requires GNG be met. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "title clinching finalist of a world championship event" does not appear in WP:NMOTORSPORT as an accomplishment which leads to a presumption of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks independent coverage in reliable sources beyond brief mentions in secondary sources. It fails to establish notability according to WP:N. Yakov-kobi (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's mentioned a number of times on Hungarian newspaper archive Arcanum – after he died an international race was named in his honor: "Druhý ročník Memoriálu Bedřicha Slaného je dalším významným mezinárodním závodem" [The second year of the Bedřich Slaného Memorial is another important international race]. The fact that an international race of some importance was named in his honor shows significance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. My closer instinct says to Redirect this article, which would retain the content, but I don't see a consensus to do this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refresher

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

No mentions with a Google search and searches on legal glossary websites TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 06:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick web search shows that this is a genuine term term [31] [32], it is used by law firms to describe their fee structure, [33] [34] [35] and is recognised by the courts [36]. But none of that takes this article beyond a DICDEF and the article ought to go for that reason. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary there is nothing other than a dictionary deifnition here, and there is no reason to expect there ever will be. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandas Jasevičius

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. PROD was contested but unable to locate independent significant coverage of this individual. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Lithuania. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been well-known in Lithuania, which Lithuanian media did you search in your WP:BEFORE? I found the basics in an Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia, coverage of his European bronze in 2004 (career highlight = not WP:ROUTINE) and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of an assault later in 2004 that halted his career. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Radoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Match fixing in Romanian football

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

This article appears to be nothing but conjecture. My first thought was to remove the unsourced information, but there would be nothing left. I found one article on researchgate but it still wouldn't meet the basic guidelines. C 679 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. C 679 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly needs work on, plausible topic with a paper written on the fact, [37], secondary source on the paper [38] Per BBC Sounds Chaos in Romania and Dutch Match-Fixing. There are more sources online to digest. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Match fixing in association football#Romania using sources above, does not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Match fixing in association football#Romania sounds fine to me. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daaru Salaam University

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

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

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

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

Markku Helminen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. With the additional Finnish sources and the lack of explaination as to why Who's Who of World Speedway would count a as a primary source, I'm leaning towards keep. /Julle (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

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

All referencing appears to be from Oxford, UK-specific remembrance group publications. Cooper served honorably, and died, for an incredibly honorable cause but Wikipedia is not a memorial. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Spain, and United Kingdom. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added four citations from books that mention him. (Most sources refer to him under his stage name "Edward Burke".) Nvss132 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most are quick mentions and don't appear to go in-depth on the subject. I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016 Western United States wildfires

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

The page is currently 2 sentences long, and doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wildfires#Canada and the United States. per WP:NOTNEWS, it has no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wildfires are common natural disasters, these ones were 8 years ago, no one bothered to write about when it might have been a bit relevant. No harm be deleting this. WP:NOTNEWS. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally, I'd redirect to List of wildfires#Canada and the United States but there is no mention of these fires on this page. The list is very incomplete as there is an article on 2016 California wildfires and those fires aren't mentioned on this list either. Is there another possible target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find another possible target. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Paco Castagna

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three times Champion of Italy and has ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three more non Primary sources as suggested to the article. Pyeongchang (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews are primary and non-independent, and the press release is a namedrop. All of them are very far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IRS SIGCOV entirely lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Pyeongchang pointed out. Being a double national champion, pass criteria 4 of (an overly biased towards circuit racing that is] WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pre-modern forest conservation practices in Southern Nigeria

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

WP:NOTESSAY. Reads a lot like an essay, and doesn't fit the tone on Wikipedia. Attempting to rewrite this article would be more trouble than it's worth. While relatively well sourced, I'm not sure how such a narrow topic can pass GNG. OzzyOlly (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Nigeria. OzzyOlly (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage

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

Article seems to be entirely based on original research. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, Geography, and Lists. C F A 💬 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. this falls under WP:NOTSTAT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRUFTCRUFT, and WP:SIMPLYLINKINGTOAPOLICYPAGEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEANARGUMENTTHATSOMETHINGFAILSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEPOLICY. jp×g 🗯️ 06:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page will continue to expand to provinces, states, etc for teh future. Already have the source. Applaused (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Miminity, mixing countries and "subdivisions" seems a bit odd, and the fact that all it lists are cities. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my last message, this page will continue to expand, to provinces, states, etc. still in progress, list can be waiting, or you kindly can contribute thx. Applaused (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Springs, Texas

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

Unsourced article about a community I can find next to nothing on. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -Samoht27 (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — found thr USGS Entry and an article on the TSHA. The TSHA also cites History of Falls County, Texas and Westerm Falls County, Texas. Roasted (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just edited to include all of those sources. Roasted (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I also just noticed this, via the TSHA (Texas State Historical Association) source now listed in the article. According to the sources, this town has been there for more than a century and still exists. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games (Tenacious D song)

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

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

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

Arun Kumar Mehta

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

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

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

List of Bernice Summerfield characters

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

A list of characters from media associated with the Bernice Summerfield character. A brief BEFORE yields very little hits for anything related to the supporting cast, and the list itself fails LISTN and Verifiability, as Summerfield is herself the only character with an article and the rest of the article is not cited. I'm admittedly uncertain what to do with the article's (Very brief and short) collection of contents, as I am not familiar with how recurring or important these characters are to the narrative, but a potential AtD could be a merge to Bernice Summerfield (Where there is a similar characters list for audio characters) or a straight up deletion, depending on what is decided. Either way, this list seems dedicated to a rather irrelevant and small subgroup of characters, of which a separate list does not seem justifiable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one/two lines per character to a new Bernice Summerfield#Characters section. I agree this doesn't need a separate article/list, but a little more context for the audio character table would be nice. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oppression Remedy

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

Found no sigcov on this book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Man for All Islands

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

No sigcov anywhere. Redirect to author Royston Ellis? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Maldives. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160919/to-celebrate-or-not-to-celebrate.html</nowiki>
^ https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/muslim-man-celebrates-onam-kerala-payasam-fest-340645-2016-09-12
^ "Sunni outfits slam Muneer". The Times of India. 2016-09-09. ISSN 0971-8257. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
^ "Muslims should diplomatically keep off Onam-Christmas celebrations:Religious speaker makes controversial statement". Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
^ Ponmala Abdul Qadir Musliyar (2015). "Religious reasonabilities of nilavilak aversion". sunnivoice.net (in Malayalam). Archived from the original on 2018-11-24. Retrieved 2023-07-28.

[1] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160919/to-celebrate-or-not-to-celebrate.html</nowiki>

[2] ttps://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/muslim-man-celebrates-onam-kerala-payasam-fest-340645-2016-09-12

[3] "Sunni outfits slam Muneer". The Times of India. 2016-09-09. ISSN 0971-8257. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.

[4] "Muslims should diplomatically keep off Onam-Christmas celebrations:Religious speaker makes controversial statement". Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 17 April 2020.

[5] Ponmala Abdul Qadir Musliyar (2015). "Religious reasonabilities of nilavilak aversion". sunnivoice.net (in Malayalam). Archived from the original on 2018-11-24. Retrieved 2023-07-28.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]