Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 22	November 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of last survivors of historical events

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

This list is a good example of what Wikipedia is not about. Per WP:NLIST, a list should only exist "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." While there are a few sources of dubious quality that list general groups of last survivors together, these seem to rely on the existence of this Wikipedia list, as many include Eliza Moore, a once erroneous entry on this list. When her name was removed here, she stopped being referenced in these near Wikipedia mirrors.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given the woefully broad inclusion criterion of this list, this list is. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. This list is, as it contains entries as broad as the last living player from the 1950 World Cup to the last living Currier and Ives staff member. WP:CROSSCAT also applies. Per WP:LSC, "as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per schetm (talk · contribs). Throw this shit into the sun. wound theology ◈ 15:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been in the crosshairs for 15 years. People like it, people refer to it, and it's not hurting anything. Bkatcher (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:POPULARPAGE, and WP:HARMLESS. Congratulations; you managed to pack 3 separate arguments to avoid into just one short !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague and indiscrimate to be meaningful. Literally every event, organization, group, or office ever has (or will have) a last survivor. This is not a notable grouping or useful form of navigation. Even deleting non-notable people and unsourced entries, this is all pointless trivia that someone will naturally always live longest. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 28#Category:Last survivors for the CfD that resulted in the creation of this list. schetm (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The idea of last survivors discussed as a group is mentioned in reliable sources (see below) that don't seem to be mirrors of this page. We have many articles on people who are solely known as a last survivor (such as Ivan Martynushkin, Sun Yaoting), and this article is a meaningful grouping that is reported on in RS, even though the scope is indeed too broad. If the list is cut down only to notable people and has a higher bar for significance of the event (sinking of the Titanic instead of the 1911 Indianapolis 500), it merits inclusion.

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Leaf-Historys-Last-Known-Survivors/dp/161614162X

https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=thesis

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Survivors_of_Historical_Events.html?id=9Nc4QQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-07-2010/last_leaf_photos_of_history_last_survivors.html

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Leaf.html?id=TeXlURw0-w8C&source=kp_book_description PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, first: three of your links are the same book and/or a review of the book. Next, the second source is a bachelor's thesis (hardly a reliable source). Last, The Last Survivors of Historical Events, Movies, Disasters, and More is a trivia collection intended as a coffee table book (it says right there in the description.) Put simply, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. wound theology ◈ 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST per PlotinusEnjoyer. Like it or not, humans have a fascination with "last survivors"; even to the point that there is curriculum built around the concept across multiple unrelated events. The Last Leaf is clearly a solid book treating this as a discussed group. Interestingly enough this list became the subject of a piece published by the AV Club. Theres also lots of these sort of lists floating around the internet which (while not great sources for our purposes) show a general interest in this as a unifying concept, like [1], [2], [3]. Being the last survivor is also reported on routinely, so sourcing this list isn't an issue. We as humans record these things, which is why this list has so many WP:RS materials. There are also historical research publications that talk about last survivor narratives broadly which I think bolsters the concept of this being discussed as a group or set. One example is the excerpt: from a journal in google scholar Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit of a tangent, but I would not use Medium as evidence here. It's not a WP:Reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), but more than that it has been known to plagiarize Wikipedia, so it becomes kind of circular to say that it demonstrates that there is interest in a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think I already pointed out that it wasn't usable for our purposes as WP:RS in my original statement. The Medium (website) platform itself has a distribution on social media that is unlike wikipedia, and it selects content based on what they think its users will be interested in. That was really my point (it wasn't a sourcing based argument to include it). Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I know you weren't suggesting to cite it (not great sources for our purposes), but my point is that since they sometimes rip off Wikipedia, their decision to have an article on a topic can reflect the existence of such an article on Wikipedia more than a general interest in the topic. I know that they have plagiarized low-traffic Wikipedia content before. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, lists the issues of a barely/non-notable magazine and card game, unreferenced, info unencyclopaedic DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have PRODed this, but there was a previous AfD (which closed as no consenseus, and had no policy-based remarks). An AtD might be a merge, but I do not believe that a good idea, bcs it will just be a listing of the enemy aliens.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (minor merge) to Doctor Who – Battles in Time in the spirit of WP:AtD. I don't think this topic fullfills WP:LISTN, but brief references to the topic do appear in secondary sources, so it's not out of the question someone might use this content in the future. Doctor Who – Battles in Time is the natural target and has a listing of the four special issues. Lastly, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is small(and would if smaller after it is made more encyclopedic), so any listing necessary can be made there too. Redirects are cheap, but so are deleting them- it's an unlikely search term, ppl will almost always search it by "Battle in Time" only. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at statistics, this article had an average of one hit per day. Not a lot, but not nothing either (considering that redirects are cheap...). The target article has an average of six hits per day. That's still the same order of magnitude. So while I agree that most users will search for "Battles in Time" only, almost always seems an overstatement. With regard to any listing necessary can be made there too, I agree at this point; I think this strengthens the argument for a redirect; and preserving the current version in the history could be helpful for that. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same view average, not search average (and I don't think there is a way to find that out). There as in "Battles in Time"- because any listing will not be this detailed, and does not need a page. (P.S.- I usually don't reply this much to the !voters, I just don't want this article to result in a "non-consensus" again). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that, but in the light of my previous arguments my conclusion is still redirect rather than deletion. So I guess only more opinions can bring us to something approaching consensus. Daranios (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, more opinions would help reach consensus. My motive was just to show that we agree on the facts, and only disagree on whether that means "Delete" or "Redirect". (And thank you for this constructive discussion) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nominator. This seems to fall into directory territory given the lack of sources commenting on these articles. As Doctor Who – Battles in Time exists, I do not feel a redirect is necessary. Only article linking to this list is Doctor Who – Battles in Time and spelling redirects, which can also be removed / deleted. Shazback (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Daranios. BOZ (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shazback. I concur that a redirect isn't necessary and not very helpful to those looking for the card game Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Doctor Who – Battles in Time per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Textblock

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

Single sentence dictionary definition cited to a dubious non-sigcov source that does not help notability. I don't think this is the kind of topic that can possibly be its own article. Not opposed redirecting somewhere but no idea where - maybe some kind of glossary of publishing terms, but IDK if we have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bookbinding#Methods, which uses the term several times. Probably helpful to copy the def there as a parenthetical the first time the term is used, so I guess this would be a merge. Should not be a stand-alone article; the term is only useful within the context of bookbinding. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. There's a lot of content on textblock construction in bookbinding books within google books discussing the various ways different cultures constructed and repair textblocks with bookbindings. An article would theoretically be possible if we were to compare different textblock constructions from say Japan versus the Middle East versus Europe, or even the way constructing textblocks has changed across time with different materials. I do think there is room to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. Some examples of sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage you gave though is all in the context of the bookbinding process - it could maybe be two paragraphs and that would duplicate the book binding article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be some overlap... A redirect here is difficult though, because essentially the textblock is the main body of a book. This is a term that should be covered in the book article itself (which interestingly doesn't currently name the different parts of a book which I think is a fundamental content gap), as fundamentally books since the time of the codex can't exist without a textblock unless its a scroll. It's such a fundamental concept that to put it into the book binding article alone doesn't seem the right way to cover this.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair but it's not like there's any content to merge here, and it shouldn't have its own page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this page, it seemed to me that there should be some place on Wikipedia that covers this significant type of object, but I also was not sure the best way to do it. Something like a glossary or significant chunk of the bookbinding page seems fine to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Corm II

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

An article was draftified to Draft:Charles Corm II in May 2024 because of lack of notability, but was recreated as a mainspace article by the author in August. It still lacks any evidence of notability of the subject, Charles Corm II. The cited information is almost entirely about his company, CormCo. Time for permanent deletion, in my view. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest the deletion of this article on Charles Corm II. I have been covering Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent for decades. Dozens of totally non-notable personalities, including a slew of politicians and their children, have been included in Wikipedia with absolutely no respect for high-quality evidence, policies. and guidelines. Corm II is a notable person in Lebanon, beyond Lebanon, and in the global investment community. He built a $1 billion+ investment company and has financially backed several notable tech startups, which are now listed in Wikipedia too. He invests through CORMCO, the company he founded to that effect, and hence a large part of the article's focus is on CORMCO as it is the investment vehicle used to carry out these successful investments. Corm II is an investor and therefore does not get, or seek to get, the kind of media coverage Wikipedia usually craves to get. Failing to understand the above is failing to correctly assess the notability of this article. He is more than worthy of being in Wikipedia and I will defend this article as much as needed in what seems to be systemic bias against more discreet personalities and in favor of sensationalist articles about heavily covered nobodies. Kind regards. Caliban31 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
~~:Agreed. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Article is sourced to puff pieces that lack clear independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Puff pieces? These are investing books. Caliban31 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Strongly disagree with your statement. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable and the article provides high-quality evidence. Additional references should be added. I also do not support the WP:SALT whatever the final decision. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)— Khalifa2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A lot of this article is cited to Investopedia and CORMCO neither of which even discuss Corm II, so this article potentially fails WP:V as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Spiderone, please hear me out:

I am not Corm II nor do I know him personally. I promise. I'm a fan of his late grandfather like many Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent. I heard a lot about Corm II and decided to devote an article to him. Nobody paid me or asked me anything. It was supposed to be the first of a number of articles I plan to author and submit for submission. Yes, I spent a lot of time on it as a way of improving my Wikipedia skills. As simple as that. Also, I have made many small edits in many articles on people, places, and events and I'm surprised you don't see them (I don't even know where this stuff appears).
I agree that the article needs further verifications. I thank you for having taken the time to add your notes and I take good notice of them. If you give me some time, I promise to provide the references you rightfully ask for. Until then, please do not allow the deletion of an article that, once improved, deserves its place in Wikipedia. Corm II should not be penalized for my hastiness in drafting the article.
I, of course, retract my statements. It was my way of stating the famous ''never assume...". I do however believe that people like me, proud Arab Americans, have ''no voice'' on Wikipedia and that pains me.
I commend you for the amazing contributions you have made right here on Wikipedia. I skimmed your page and a few of the articles you authored, and it's truly outstanding work. I admit being an amateur in light of your impressive track record here and only wish to lean more about editing and authoring articles.
Be kind Spiderman, it's a small world. I wish you all the best.

Truly, Caliban31

Caliban31 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the name of his spouse, names of his children, which schools he attended and his DOB? None of this is in the cited sources. It's important to follow the policy of WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find sources relating to his grandfather (same name) but none for him. As has been noted in the article, many sources fail verification. The first source appears to have nothing to do with the content of this article. It's a republished technical report from 1991 (full text at Openlibrary), which predates this fellow's entry into business and thus cannot verify the statements here. Without more reliable sourcing this can't be kept. It does not instill confidence that sources that are obviously irrelevant to the subject have been included. I will cycle back to see if sourcing has been improved. Lamona (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, in fact, at present no citation even mentions subject, see source assessment table below, and I would be surprised if Kwatinetz (2004) and Huisman (2001), to which no pages have been given in the citations, mention him.
The currently first listed reference:
Ginsberg, Ari (n.d.). Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0.
with no date and with erroneous ISB-number is an audacious WP:FAKE reference. The original citation is
Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024.,
but notice that the paper was first presented at the Minnesota Strategy Process Conference, October 20-22, 1991 at a time when Corm was 17 and still in high school. And it does, of course, not mention Corm at all.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ginsberg, Ari. Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0.	Assumed	Assumed	Citation is disingenuous. The original article is Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024. Subject was still in high school by the time this article was published.	✘ No
Bushnell, Mitch. "CORMCO – About". New York City: CORMCO.	Subject's company web page.	? Subject's company web page.	Subject not mentioned	✘ No
"S&P 500 Average Return and Historical Performance". Investopedia.		Citation is to Investopedia, a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher-quality sources instead.	Subject not mentioned	✘ No
Salameh, Franck (2015). Charles Corm: An Intellectual Biography of a Twentieth-Century Lebanese "Young Phoenician". The Levant and Near East: A Multidisciplinary Book Series. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-8401-1. Retrieved November 18, 2024.	?	Assumed, Salameh is Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Boston College.	? Book about subject's grandfather. Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
Kwatinetz, Mike; Wood, Danielle Kwatinetz (March 15, 2004). The Big Tech Score: A Top Wall Street Analyst Reveals Ten Secrets to Investing Success. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-43665-2.	Assumed	Assumed	? Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
Huisman, Kuno J. M. (November 30, 2001). Technology Investment. Boston, Mass.: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-0-7923-7487-9.	Assumed	Assumed	? Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sam Sailor 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. For the last time and as I mentioned above, I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. I will consider further action if and when the vandalism and harassment against me continues. There is no justification for such behaviors against a newcomer to Wikipedia only wanting to contribute to the community but discriminated against because of that person's ethnicity and religion.

Vandalism: On multiple occasions, my contributions to various articles have been deliberately altered or removed without justification. This includes edits or articles which were reverted or modified in a manner that distorts the original intent and factual accuracy of the content. According to Wikipedia's policy, vandalism is defined as editing intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. The actions taken against my edits clearly fall under this definition.

Harassment: Additionally, I have been subjected to repeated personal attacks and targeted harassment by certain users. This behavior includes specific instances of harassment, such as derogatory comments on my user talk page or edit summaries, which appear to be aimed at intimidating me and discouraging my participation. Wikipedia defines harassment as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior targeting specific individuals. The actions I have faced align with this description.

Best regards.

Caliban31 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

CU Note I have just blocked Caliban31 and Khalifa2024, who are the same person. Striking Khalifa2024's comment above, and removing the second bolded 'keep' !vote added by Caliban31. I have not looked at the article and have no view on the merits of the deletion nomination, but when evaluating this discussion the closer should note that for all the commentary above, so far only the article's author has opined in favour of retention. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the accusations of discrimination and harassment made by the creator, the only account actually in favour of keeping this article, are completely baseless. Despite several requests to provide sources, this is still a BLP with zero sources. I can't help but think that the false accusations are a deliberate distraction from that fact. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delia M. Sosa

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

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1)	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast	Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here	~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing.	? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary	✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2)	Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Why not?	Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage.	✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website	This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students.	This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release	This is a press release	This is a press release	There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece.	✘ No
Them	Seems independent to me	For sake of argument	There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's.	✘ No
500 Queer Scientists	This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	? This is the same as source 6; nothing new.	✘ No
MedPage Today	Why not?	Why not?	Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece.	✘ No
USA Today	USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL per WP:RSP	While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent sources, and as nom points out the AMA source doesn't even mention them. This may simply be too soon but it is hard to tell because we don't have such basic information as educational dates. (I have a vague memory of having already seen this at afd but checked the delete log and didn't find it.) Lamona (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What's the best way to revert to draft? Can keep it just in case more press comes out and it meets guidelines in the future. Tunasaur (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of draftification is to hold an otherwise notable article that does not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards. As such, I don't really see a valid reason to draftify this; the subject isn't notable and we can't peer into a crystal ball to see what the future holds here, and I don't see a particular reason why coverage would be expected to arise in the next six months or so. If future coverage does wind up establishing notability, then the article could be refunded to the draftspace and submitted through Articles for Creation at that time—but that doesn't mean we should indefinitely keep a draft up on a non-notable WP:BLP subject. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The source analysis is convincing and I was unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV; although I am impressed with Sosa's scholarly publications at such a young age (this article in the National Library of Medicine is one example). I believe they are likely to be notable in the future, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON for an article.4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Utah law

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

Unsourced, and draftification has been contested. A WP:BEFORE search turns up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Utah. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Undoubtedly this could be a topic if one were to examine articles published in the The Utah Journal Of Crimininal Law, Utah Law Review, and the BYU Education and Law Journal. The Legal Research resources at the Utah State Courts website might also provide useful. If one searches under "Utah Code § 76-5-203. C" (murder statute in Utah) in google books there are several hits which would lead to resources talking about the Utah laws for murder. Likewise searching under that criminal code brought up journal articles such as this [8], [9], etc. An article would be possible, but this current article in unacceptable for main space.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 For the record, I actually agree with draftification, but WP:DRAFTIFY required me to take this to AfD since this was moved into mainspace from draftspace. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that was the case based on the language you used in your nomination. I agree that moving to draft and requiring an WP:AFC review would be the best option in this case.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qonto

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business, PR, interviews. scope_creep^Talk 20:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @scope_creep It would be helpful to have a WP:SIRS table analysis done per WP:ORGCRIT so we can better understand your reasoning. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

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

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both English and simple-English Wikipedias contain numerous articles about descendants of the defunct Brazilian royal family—individuals whose encyclopedic relevance is highly questionable, especially considering that many do not even have articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia. There is longstanding evidence of coordinated edits by pro-monarchy groups who create such articles as part of a cross-wiki spam effort, aiming to inflate the prominence of these figures. Sturm (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the future head of the Imperial House of Brazil. I see no reason why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I was surprised that his father didn't have one. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just remembered that his older brother, Prince Pedro Luiz, too had a Wikipedia page. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on past precedent of keeping deposed monarchs, but requiring significant coverage of the royal person. In my longstanding standards for nobility, I write, “Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.” I don’t see any coverage at all about this young man - it might be just too soon since he was “promoted”. I recommend, as we often do in such cases, to redirect to Brazilian imperial family or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line. I actually think the article is weakened by the addition today of a lot of detail from his brother's article. There's basically nothing in the article about him personally other than his birth. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the above poster pointed out, very little is about him personally.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sturm (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several relevant news articles that pass WP:GNG.Axisstroke (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright for lack of sources supporting notability. Rafael may well inherit the throne of Brazil one day, but the notability he's after here cannot be inherited. Fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line per WP:ATD. It's a credible search term at the very least, and a redirect to the House of Orléans-Braganza would seem appropriate as well as a brief passing mention of the subject on that page.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like this one could be a candidate for expansion from the French-language version.[10] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The es-wiki version is longer but it does not appear to be a specific legal form unique in the law or culture of Spanish-speaking countries but rather a generic local term for a not-for-profit association. I think a redirect is appropriate, probably to Voluntary association but perhaps to Nonprofit organization. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. In reading the source there are different kinds of non-profit licensing/designations in Spanish speaking countries under Spanish law. This is one of those. Arguably we could redirect and merge this with non-profit. Either way, this is a legal term for certain types of companies that is unique to Spanish-speaking countries which would seem encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. Jinnllee90 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Music Network

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

I stumbled across this article, which cites no sources and contains large dollops of apparent WP:OR. I tried to find some sources to back up the information presented, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in the UK press, nor the specialist media press. There are a few passing mentions of the Hit Music Network on Radio Today, but no significant coverage specifically about it. The very generic name doesn't help, as there's a lot of coverage of other "hit music [radio] networks" worldwide, but I'm not sure this relatively short-lived "network" warrants an article beyond the articles for the stations contained within it. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jelping-Ja-Oyka

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

As far as I can tell, this is a hoax article. I can find no source for Jelping-Ja-Oyka and the ones I did find use this article as a source. Additionally, the link listed in the article, aside from not looking reliable, does not even mention "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Article has been marked as unsourced since 2021. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax (unless a very deep one, several decades old) – rather just a case of an obscure topic in a language which does not use the latin alphabet for writing. The name(s), in Russian, seem to be 'Консыг-Ойка' and 'Ялпус-ойка'. Here's the Russian: wikipedia page for it. The source it uses is this (last column on page 545). Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to a figure that uses a completely different name. Konsyg-Oika and Yalpus-Oika are not the same thing as "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", that is the hoax. The source you provided does not list the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Nor does that figure Konsyg-Oika apparently have anything to do with Mir-Susne-Hum as the article claims is the case for "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Jaguarnik (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

AfDs for this article:

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

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([11], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([12], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([13]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([14]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International School (Panama)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL,should be redirected to The Oxford School (Panama) as an article already exists. Jinnllee90 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley Rader

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

The article fails to meet general notability guidelines. It lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources and appears an attempt to promote their brand. The article was previously draftified and later recreated with unnecessary disambiguation. This change does not appear to address the notability concerns, and instead, it seems to circumvent previous review processes. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, United States of America, and California. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2M (DOS)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sources to support notability, but I did find a failed merge proposal for this page as well as some baseless assertions that the subject is notable.

To be clear, if you're voting Keep, we need to see specific citations to reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Strip famine

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

The article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine, so the subject fails the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:Notability. Unless reliable sources report that an actual famine materializes in Gaza, this material is better suited for the food and water section of Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), not a standalone article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article repeatedly discusses an actual occurring famine within the Gaza Strip, there is even a chart that shows that in 24-7 December 2023 there were 377,283 people experiencing famine, 676,636 in Feb - Mar 2024, 342,719 in May - June 2024 and so on (it needs to be updated, but the IPC has not produced briefing docs in recent months, at least per a very quick search). There is ample significant coverage from a wide array of RS of famine earlier in the year. To be grammatically accurate I suppose a MR to "Famine in the Gaza Strip" could be made, but I see no need to delete the article and especially not under WP:Notability grounds. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources support an actual ongoing famine? A survey of recent reliable sources shows: Reuters quotes a UN aid official saying a famine is "looming"[15], BBC cites a UN-backed assessment that said "the risk of famine persists"[16], CNN cites officials saying the area is "on the brink of famine"[17], Al Jazeera quotes experts saying "strong likelihood" of imminent famine[18], etc. Stonkaments (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the article's references alone: Samantha Powers in April (Axios), "Others say it has already arrived" (Guardian), Famine has spread (CNN), Famine has spread across the entire Gaza Strip (UN), "famine-like conditions occurred in northern areas during the first half of 2024" (Refugees Intl) and so on.

The most recent release from the IPC (not yet ref'd in the article) shows that while the number of people in "catastrophic" or "famine" conditions (as a % of people suffering emergency or crisis levels of food emergency) may have dropped in September-October, there are still 113k people living in catastrophic conditions. You're right that a lot of very recent articles say that famine is "looming", especially in North Gaza, but the article is not about what is happening in November 2024 only. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination, the WP:SCOPE is given by the title and the first sentence "The population of the Gaza Strip is at high risk of famine as a result of Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war and an Israeli blockade, including of basic essentials and humanitarian aid.^[1]^[2]^[3] Furthermore, nominator themself states he article discusses the risk of a potential future famine in the Gaza Strip. Reliable sources warn of the risk of famine, not an actual famine. Notability is not even in question, it seems nominator objects to the article title, that needs an RM not an AfD, and there are already two failed attempts in that respect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ridiculous nomination". What is wrong with you? You encouraged me to submit the AfD. Stonkaments (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that if you believed your own words, then you should do that. Of course, I didn't actually expect that you would but I am forever surprised by what editors do on WP. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I not believe the words that I write? WP:Assume good faith. It's patently absurd to describe the risk of an impending famine as the "Gaza Strip famine", in Wikivoice. Stonkaments (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained the WP:SCOPE, the article does not assert that there is a famine, just that there is a high risk of one. That doesn't mean the title is wrong provided that there are sourced references to famine (real or potential, doesn't matter) and there are indeed plentiful such references. Furthermore, the PM of Israel now has an arrest warrant out on him for using starvation as a weapon of war. The problem is you think the article title is a statement of fact, it isn't, it's just a title, which is not POV as long as there is appropriate sourcing discussing famine, which there is. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GFISNOT means that editors should start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia, not that we have to assume that anyone believes what they're saying. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's title accurately conveys the intended scope, the topic of a famine in the Gaza Strip. This article is also too large to realistically be merged into the proposed target. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Knutson, Jacob (11 April 2024). "U.S. aid official says famine has begun in northern Gaza". Axios. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 24 April 2024.
^ "The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: a human-made catastrophe". The Guardian. 19 March 2024. Archived from the original on 10 May 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
^ "Imminent famine in northern Gaza is 'entirely man-made disaster': Guterres". UN News. 18 March 2024. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 3 April 2024.

Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. I'm requesting a more lengthy & thorough review of this to provide a bit of guidance for many like this that are sitting in the old part of NPP que. Under similar ones I've seen somebody just saying "coverage probably exists" without providing it, and without even arguing (much less establishing) that GNG coverage exists or that it is coverage of this topic. (not of something which just might fall under this topic, and not of something that this topic might fall under.) My own opinion is that something that is at least close to GNG coverage on this topic (not necessarily meeting the strictest interpretation of what GNG coverage is) would need to be added to the article to establish wp:notability, IMO a sort of "middle of the road" practical interpretation. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, India, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of France (1795) order of battle

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

Contested merge, with both parties agreeing this unreferenced page isn't helpful as a standalone article. Given the uncontested argument that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, and wouldn't improve Invasion of France (1795), deletion seems the best course. I also note that it was (re)created by a now-banned account. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and France. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Giménez

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

The claim to notability is weak (some would say there isn't even one at all) and I can find no WP:SPORTBASIC-worthy sources. I found ANFP and Soy Chile in my searches but these are far from good enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Schlossár

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

Another long-time stub of a Slovak men's footballer named Martin without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. He spends most of his career in lower leagues and only played seven minutes in one match at a professional level so far. Regarding secondary sources, I only found SME where he is just mentioned in match result. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ross (Australian sculptor)

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

Talented but by in-house wiki standards sadly NN. sources are passing mention only. Have done a BEFORE but see only gallery listings. Don't suspect WP:BIO. Her work is very very impressive, but not sure a wiki bio is warranted just yet. Would be trilled to be proven wrong. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see what you mean, that the works are more notable than the artist. Is it ethical to delete items from an article before nominating it for deletion? Doug butler (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America

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

Violator of WP:RECENTISM. No sustained notability of protests ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United States of America. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS — Maile (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:NACTOR, so fails WP:GNG. One ref, questionable, was added after the previous AFC decline, and it isn't WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was previously deleted, created by sock account, and created again by IP likely same sock and after AFC decline, it was submitted for AFC review again by sock account User:Aloo92. From 14 srcs on the page, 8 are unreliable sources and the other 6 have no significant coverage on the subject to pass WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "I came across this page on AFC and was about to reject it after seeing the record of the previous 8 deletions and the poor references cited. But, after some web research(which I do for all pages I reviewed), I found some reliable sources, (i.e: [19], [20], [21], [22],[23] and [24], I believed it met WP:NACTOR and convinced me to grant it a chance for improvement and a notability banner is all that's required, let's wait for the votes. ANU^writes

Source 1 and 2 are not independent, source 3 has mention about subject quitting mtv show, source 4 and 6 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and Source 5 is passing mention about the subject about being first choice for the show. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's source 2 not independent in entertainment category? Reminder, it's ruled out as not entirely independent in politics because of it's Political Alignment with the current indian regime.^[1] Source 2 isn't the passing mention as it covers the subject who's quitting the show also source 5 covers two actors who were competing for some film role, the subject is among them, how's that the passing mention? (Reminder: Article titles usually tell readers what/who the article is going to cover/who's the subject). source 4 and 6 which are from the same website are indeed ruled as questionable in most cases but looking at it's discussion here, you have to choose what to source as it's still trusted by majority, also we are required to read any questionable context to see whether there's any sign of WP:COI, these articles (4&6) which are said to be of 2015 have some quality and reliable information in them plus less or no promotion. I still think the article should be kept. ANU^writes 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 4 and 6 are unreliable for all reasons and that is why by consensus it was listed under unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources. You can discuss about the source on WP:ICTFSOURCES talk page. When I mentioned about source 2 not independent means that the article is not independent of the claims (interview) made by the subject himself. Sources are recommended to be secondary independent. Source 5 is just passing mention and nothing significant that is needed to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:NACTOR pass with at least 2 lead/main cast roles (ergo significant) in notable productions; existing sources (some presented here) allow to verify it. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Maharashtra. Mushy Yank (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis. Note that in show "Kaisi yeh yaariaan" the subject was not a lead but played the character of best friend of the main lead.
Source 1 writes about the subject quitting the show by sharing subject's Twitter message.
Source 2 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 3 is promotion and advertising the subject by sharing his Instagram.
Source 4 is passing mention.
Source 5 is passing mention about the subject being one of the contestant on the MTV Splitsvilla Season 8
Source 6 is unreliable WP:IBTIMES
Source 7 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 8 has videos of different episodes of a show "Pyar Tune Kya Kiya" and the subject was in episode 1.
Source 9 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Source 11 is not independent with interview of the subject talking about his role in the upcoming TV show.
Source 12 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
Source 13 is dead 404.
Source 14 is linked to jio cinema and suppose to show overview info on fuh se fantasy web series but quickly jumps to another screen but nothing significant on the subject.
Source 15 does not even have an entry about the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two or more roles with verification of those roles is not what WP:NACTOR means. Two or more roles give us the presumption that there is significant coverage (not just verification). The coverage here is all churnalism, unreliable, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The serried history of this article, its recreation per nom and nom's source analysis are pretty damning. A search reveals nothing else of any great note out there, so if this is the sourcing we have, it's simply not enough. Time to SALT as well? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Mughal Empire

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

Perhaps I dont understand whats need of this redirect it seems as POV Fork and should simply merged with List of Battles involving Mughal Empire and that article should see some improvement.I certainly see that by this we are simply giving someone a peak level of confusion. Edasf «Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Edasf «Talk» 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find a List of Battles involving Mughal Empire article. There's a List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, but it doesn't cover many of the wars stated in the article. IdanST (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IdanST List of battles involving the Mughal Empire Edasf «Talk» 15:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right.

However, I see the article was changed to contain only wars redirects, with a 'See also' redirect to List of battles involving the Mughal Empire. As such, both articles fulfill different roles now, and because of that I remain on 'Keep'. IdanST (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two article deal with quite different subjects, and the content forking in the article was of recent nature, now previous version restored. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi I don't know what one gets from such a disambiguation page but ol fine. Edasf «Talk» 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Oak, Indiana

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

Baker describes it as a post office, and that's what the maps and aerials show. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Latimer

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

No evidence of notability. Existing refs are non-independent, non-significant, or non-secondary. Souped-up find-sources sans social media:

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

I see nothing here that is reliable, except a passing mention in the Australian Television Information Archive which is not enough to establish notability. Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Australia, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging users with >5% of added text: @Me Da Wikipedian, 99aquamarine, RoxySaunders, Jackmcbarn, and Sedgewren:. Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Hammersoft who I recall discussing this with. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She played a mermaid in a spin-off of a children's series and was dropped in series 2. Beyond socials there is nothing, entirely lacking WP:SIGCOV and doesn't pass GNG let alone specifics like NACTOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My sole fixation on the article is due to Latimer coming out as a trans man on his since-deleted Instagram. I feel very awkward and invasive about my efforts to document and verify that fact, given that by 2020 he was clearly a private citizen, and I have no idea how he'd feel being outed on a WP page written by fans of a mermaid show he did years ago. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 14:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tengeg Neville

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

Lacking significant coverage, does not meet WP:NSPORT. Frost 11:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is an outstanding football player in Cambodian Premier League as what I mentioned. The source I'd provided is reasonable or u need me to add more source to prevent from article deletion? Best regard! Iphone5Sgold (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review references I just add. Thanks! Iphone5Sgold (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pip Blackwell

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Farrell

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Douglas (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Summers (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sing-yung

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

Seemingly written by someone close to the subject, fails WP:PROF. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 08:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding IS ∩ RS ∩ SIGCOV at this 2016 article, this 2016 article, and this 2023 article; IS RS discussion of his work without SIGCOV at this 2009 article and this 2019 article; and an RS SIGCOV 2012 interview which I'd consider to be IS as well even though interviews are sometimes borderline.
Fails NPROF for sure, but looks like he meets NAUTHOR (or maybe it's ANYBIO or GNG; notability guidelines confuse me). The article is a bit curriculis vitae (which is probably the wrong declension, but "CV" tends to mean "copyvio" here so expanding); this can be fixed. Not super convinced by COI hypothesis: this article is indeed the first major contribution by Singering88, but a. creating it as their userpage is a fair and common rookie mistake; and b. the subject was born 1939, lived in and was educated in Taiwan, then emigrated to the US— at no point in this chain would it be intuitive that a COI editor would choose to render the subject's native name in 簡體字 (which it has been since the initial recension).
I could see a case here for COATRACK, since a fair portion of the prose actually deals with the subject's research into the Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan. But I am seeing notability here, so landing at improve and keep. Folly Mox (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoc similat curriculum vitae, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gutiérrez (footballer, born 1993)

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

Not possible to verify that this player played anywhere significant or meets WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Never played any games for Carolina Switchbacks. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Pérez (footballer, born 1983)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. First, a WP:BEFORE found no significant and independent coverage, only databases, namesakes and WP:PASSING mentions such as this, this and the ABC piece already in the article (which mentions him in a match lineup). Second, the international appearance for Paraguay seems false. According to NFT, the only Pérez who played that match was Hernán Pérez, a much more merited player, and think about it: why would Héctor Pérez represent Paraguay in 2011 when he has not been verified as having a club that year, playing once in 2010? Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokrzywnica-Kolonia

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

This article was created by now long-inactive Kotbot, there is no equivalent article in the Polish wikipedia, and no reference can be found in TERYT (https://eteryt.stat.gov.pl/eTeryt/rejestr_teryt/udostepnianie_danych/baza_teryt/uzytkownicy_indywidualni/wyszukiwanie/wyszukiwanie.aspx?contrast=default) Kiwipete (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This appears to be a duplication of Gmina Pokrzywnica under another name? Kolonia Osieck is not a place, although Gmina Osieck is an administrative district, which happens to contain a Kolonia Pogorzel. I'm not up on Poland or indeed Polish, but on that basis alone, getting rid of all of this dubious cruft seems to be a good thing, per WP:TNT. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Cosnett

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having won the British Open and being the first player to have been paid by the UK government to play darts, Cosnett has coverage of its time - Sunday Mercury, Black Country Evening Mail for same, Herald Express for same - for this matter, there's a heap of other regional papers who cover him for being the only player at the time paid by the government for his sporting career. Further coverage of him "rounding off his year in style" in the Black Country Evening Mail by winning the British Open, the national darting competition at the time. There's also the Black Country Evening Mail covering him switching careers to enter the pub business (which isn't quite about his sporting achievements, but it'd be weird for a regional newspaper to cover some non-notable bloke applying for a pub license...). I don't have access to the BNA but there's also a story in the Wolverhampton Express and Star entitled "Darts star John off to seek fame", and in the same publication for him not paying his taxes - again, not really about his achievements, but it's hard to think some random unnotable would get the same coverage, let alone labelled a "darts ace". I'm seeing well enough coverage from his heyday to merit keeping the article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on sources uncovered by Ser! above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ah, the world before 1996... The coverage unearthed by Ser! above does the trick for me, Cosnett clearly passes WP:GNG. And I'm, once again, a poet. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Comment: ~~The subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN~~ however, the subjects appointment as Chief Electoral Officer was only made today (November 9). Reliable sources may still be in the process of being published, given the significance of this position in government, although some have already been made available. Additionally, the subject is not new to politics, being an established figure in Indian national politics. That said, the article may be considered WP:TOOSOON as well and could be moved to draft status for further development.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the keep vote with a comment now.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mims Mentor: Could you elaborate on how the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN and NBIO? GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the subject being an Indian Administrative Service officer newly appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for the Government of Tamil Nadu, falls under the category of WP:NSUBPOL whose members can be accorded presumed notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor: Indian Administrative Service officers are not politicians. WP:NPOL is just for judges and elected politicians. You misunderstood NPOL. Read what is listed in WP:NSUBPOL regarding India: It says, “Members of the Legislative Assemblies and Councils of the States and Union Territories are presumed notable. Members of the Autonomous District Councils may or may not have presumed notability.” There is no way an appointed Chief Electoral Officer is included under NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you. While I'm not opposed to deletion (as mentioned, drafting the article could still be relevant), there might still be potential for significant coverage, as the subject was only recently appointed to the role. This could soon meet the general notability guidelines. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this article can be recreated. I am also not opposed to draftification, if consensus decides it. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Electoral officer does not pass WP:NPOL, subject in any case does not pass WP:GNG. I can't buy draftification as there's no evidence there's anything more to justify notability, certainly nothing inherent in this role as a local official in a non-political role. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two weeks later, the only articles are still about her appointment. Therefore I don't think a draftify would be appropriate. Procyon117 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[25]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data based decision making

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

Doesn't appear notable. Referenced to a very small number of academic papers from the mid to late 2000s/early 2010s, but I cursory searches don't lead me to any significant use of the term in the context of education. Article seems to be largely structured based on the ideas of the Bernhardt reference. I would assume these ideas were salient around the passage and initial implementation of the No Child Let Behind Act and not much beyond that. Maybe reduce to a paragraph or two and merge into the article for the law? William Graham ^talk 06:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. William Graham ^talk 06:58, 23 November 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. WP:G7 by User:Graeme Bartlett. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Anaum

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

This article does not meet the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. The sources cited provide insufficient significant coverage and are mostly routine mentions lacking the depth required to demonstrate notability. Additionally, the promotional tone of the article is another thing to worry about. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Fashion, Africa, and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:54, 23 November 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.

Nang Kalayar Aung

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

Non-notable singer, as she has not even released a solo album or achieved any significant milestones in her music career. I could not find any reliable sources to support her notability, so she clearly fails WP:NSINGER. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Kalayar Aung is notable within Myanmar, particularly in the entertainment and music industry. She has gained recognition for her contributions as a singer and model, especially for her work in Burmese cover songs, which are popular among local audiences. Her popularity stems from her performances at live events and her presence on platforms like YouTube, where she connects with her audience through her music

Myanmar Models DB

.

However, her international recognition might be limited, as most of her activities are centered within Myanmar. Her notability is significant in the context of Burmese music and modeling but may not extend broadly outside these circles without additional global exposure. For someone interested in Myanmar's contemporary music scene, she is a recognized figure worth exploring further. Waiyantunoo (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Kalayar Aung appears to be a notable figure due to her participation in high-profile events alongside well-known celebrities. In the context you provided, she is associated with prominent actors and celebrities such as Htoo Aung, Alinn Yaung, Kaung Myat San, Banyar Phyo Pyae, and Tayzar Linn Yaung at the grand opening of the 10th branch of the Thawara Win Sein Jewelry Store.

Being part of such an event suggests her influence or standing within the entertainment or public sphere. Her involvement with such notable figures and occasions indicates her recognition in social or professional circles.

check here Waiyantunoo (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our guidelines on notability - especially for musicians - are Western-centric, without a doubt. But this singer fails those guidelines and so, at this time, is not notable per enwiki standards. I do have to add that Apple Music rendering the title of her song, "Bawa A Twat Nin" as "Bawa A T**t Nin" really, really made my day. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The subject doesn't meet WP:NSINGER at the moment– not even GNG either. Passing through the creater's talk page, I think they may have some sort of COI relations to the subject. Htanaungg (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of Heaven

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

The more you look at sources, the more notability seems to be lacking. Many are based on band members' own words via interviews. Some other sources include articles written by band members themselves. Once you see past the notability mask smoke screen, the notability of this band appears quite thin and below meeting GNG. Also, the article was created by an undisclosed paid editing user. That editor appears to have a COI with this article. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a situation of occasionally come across where an album might be more notable than a band. Season of Death has some significant coverage from HM, The Metal Resource, and Teeth of the Divine. That last one is currently being discussed at the reliable sources notice board. I noticed the review is written by the site owner, which would mean that it can't be used for any biographical statements. The site owner is a reputable music journalist, so that does confer notability to the album. however, apart from the album reviews, most of the other stuff I'm seeing is either press release copy, interviews from unreliable or self-published sources (which are fine for verifiable statements about the band but not for establishing notability), or COI sources (The Metal Onslaught and Indie Vision Music). I am leaning toward merge with Season of Death.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ABOUTSELF. "unduly self serving" is often black and white, but there's grey area in some cases.

For example, "first luxury boutique hotel in town" citing the hotel's page or "a 100,000 lumen flash light released in 2024" citing the manufacturer's website of a light sold for $10 on Amazon. The former is fluffing, the latter is likely objectively inaccurate. However, citing the hotel's page "is a hotel in town xxx" or the flashlight's manufacturer's as "a flashlight release in 2024" would pass for factual accuracy. In 99.99% of cases, that flashlight's page has no place being cited or mentioned AT ALL on Wikipedia though. I think WP:RS is a concept unique to Wikipedia. Much of the sources in Symphony of Heaven don't substantiate inclusion worthiness even if factually accurate. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

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

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.

The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.

When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Panama

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

There are not enough sources and it seems to be WP:NOTPROMO also has no significant coverage, Fails WP:NSCHOOL Jinnllee90 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius_Intelligence

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radius Intelligence

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

Article lacks notability; there is not substantial media coverage (WP:SUBSTANTIAL), and the sources cited are niche and industry-specific, lacking sufficient audience (WP:AUDIENCE). The article appears to be self-promotion. Similar issues were raised with the now-deleted article about the company CEO. Tripofmice (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Wood

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

This feels WP:TOOSOON and exclusively uses primary and unreliable sources, along with original research in the form of maps. You can redirect with Great North Wood which offers a broader concept of the topic. Jinnllee90 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela Japonesa de Panamá

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

Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search that works. Fails WP:NSCHOOL Jinnllee90 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Panama. Skynxnex (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American School (Panama)

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

I have not been able to find anything approaching meaningful coverage of this school, furthermore this article has no sources since its creation in 2015 until a dubious source was added a few days ago, fails at WP:ATD, Fails WP:NSCHOOL Jinnllee90 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Panama. Skynxnex (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works

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

I came across this in WP:NOV24. I'm not seeing coverage that would indicate a WP:NCORP pass. This is really just an interview with an employee. This piece is much better coverage-wise, but I'm hesitant to use an editorial without a byline to support a NCORP pass. This is partially a discussion with the owner and partially a statement that it received a grant.

I just don't think the above is enough to indicate a WP:NCORP pass. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. Hog Farm _Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently, this was an AFD in 2006 but I can not locate the previous deletion discussion. But this makes this discussion not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything other then routine government reports involving local companies. No secondary RS. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2006 AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B & H Tool Works, Inc.. It was closed as keep but the information presented there was based only on notability due to employee count and sales. _Talk 03:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating that AFD, Hog Farm. I've noticed that in the early years, if there was no consensus, the outcome would be marked as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not finding coverage of the broadcasters of this league as a grouping from secondary sources to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Football. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comments at last AFD (which I started!). Giant Snowman 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately 52 more sources (so it went from having 135 to now having 187 different references) have been added through the aid of the Google News Archive. BornonJune8 (talk 6:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of deletion, why can't merging it with the Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) on television be considered as an alternative option to having an stand-alone article for the list of MISL broadcasters? The MISL on TV article though, only covers national broadcasters and not local like in the former. BornonJune8 (talk 10:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters (not including those that have already participated above): Seany91, SportingFlyer, Davidstewartharvey, ChrisTheDude. Shazback (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the article's sources, they seem to be WP:ROUTINE mentions that something happened (e.g., YouTube videos which are just copies of the broadcast of a game, news articles reporting the match's results and participants), making this seem like citation overkill. What are the best sources which establish notability of this list as per WP:NLIST? In particular for the announcers. Shazback (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My quick assessment of the first 10 sources for information:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Shazback**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1984 MISL Championship Game 5 Baltimore Blast vs St. Louis Steamers June 8, 1984 on YouTube	~ Uploaded by the club	~ User-generated content / YouTube	Rebroadcast of a game / primary source	✘ No
Woolf, Lee (February 28, 1984). "Regional Stations Sack Usfl Opener. - Page 4". The Free Lance-Star. Retrieved November 17, 2024.			Routine. Full text of the mention: "Baltimore's WJZ will continue to show USFL games each Sunday through the playoffs with one exception, this Sunday afternoon when the football game will be pre-empted for a Baltimore Blast indoor soccer match."	✘ No
MISL Baltimore Blast @ New York Arrows March 27, 1981 on YouTube	~ Uploaded by the club	~ User-generated content / YouTube	Rebroadcast of a game / primary source	✘ No
"Observer-Reporter - Page 17". Observer-Reporter. May 24, 1984. Retrieved November 17, 2024.			Routine. Full text of the mention: "Along with Ruan on nationally televised game will be Al Trautwig, the Blast's play-by-play announcer on WJZ and also the former USA Cable Network play-by-play announcer on MISL broadcasts, and Kyle Rote Jr., an ex-Dallas Tornado player in the North American Soccer League."	✘ No
MISL Buffalo Stallions at St Louis Steamers 2-27-81 on YouTube	? Pseudonymous YouTube uploader	~ User-generated content / YouTube	Rebroadcast of a game / primary source	✘ No
MISL Philly Fever at Buffalo Stallions 12-26-81 on YouTube	? Wrong YouTube link?	? Wrong YouTube link?	Wrong YouTube link? Not relevant to the article	✘ No
"LANCERS MOURN THE PASSING OF LEGENDARY ANNOUNCER WAYNE FULLER". Rochester Lancers. 12 February 2018.	~ Club's website	~ Club's website, appears to be republishing a template biography (same text as next source)	No commentary on broadcasters / announcers as a set. Minor routine mention that Fuller announced games for the Lancers	✘ No
"A SOCCER VOICE IS SILENCED: Wayne Fuller, voice of original Lancers, passes away". Front Row Soccer. February 9, 2018.	Blog / personal website	~ Blog / personal website, appears to be republishing a template biography (same text as previous source)	No commentary on broadcasters / announcers as a set. Minor routine mention that Fuller announced games for the Lancers	✘ No
"March 1987 Sting "Bee Lines"" (PDF). Fun While It Lasted.	~ Club's magazine	~ Club's magazine	Non-searchable PDF, no page referenced - best I can find is the following on page 13, which appears fully routine. Full text: "Next Televised Game. Follow the Sting onSportsVision and WPWR-TV CH. 50 with Howard Balson and David Huson. Watch the Skint live from Minnesota, April 7, 7:30 p.m. on WPWR-TV CH. 50."	✘ No
"Movies Supplant Cable Sports. - Page 22". The Vindicator. July 11, 1986. Retrieved November 11, 2024.			Article that could be relevant in the main article (or MISL on TV) showing commentary that MISL was interesting for cable sports channels that were looking to fill air-time. However, only extremely routine mention of one broadcaster for one channel, not significant coverage of this article's topic.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Merge I think we've deleted broadcaster articles since the last AfD, there's a good merge target, and we could retain relevant information there. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if the proposed Merge target is Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) on television. It would be nice to see what Let'srun and Giant Snowman think about this suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) on television per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Carter albums

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

I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources that discuss Lil Wayne's Tha Carter albums as a series or a set. A ranking by Vibe and XXL Mag is pretty much it. The albums have been released in a period over two decades, with not thematic coherence. This seems WP:SYNTHy and unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [26][27][28]... Fram (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian again is a ranking, best to worst. The Billboard piece is a listicle of "Black Music Milestones", is three paragraphs long and mentions charting positions and sales. Doesn't discuss the albums as a series. UDiscoverMusic isn't listed at WP:MUSICRS and mostly talks about the first Tha Carter, not about the series as a whole. Where do reliable sources discuss the Tha Carter albums as a series, beyond the fact they got the same title? What makes Tha Carter Lil Wayne's Berlin Trilogy? As a series, what is its meaning, its cultural impact, its legacy? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirecting and/or draftifying. It's probably a viable search term. Not sure we need a ~~third~~ fourth location beyond the artist, individual album, and artist discography articles to discuss it. If there is a need, this article certainly doesn't demonstrate. It's basically just a (incomplete) list of release dates and singles. Put it back in the oven and let it cook. These albums have been out for years. There's no reason someone needed to sloppily rush this out yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely unnecessary synthesis of four different albums that all have their own articles and are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common. An article that ranks them against each other is pretty much a trivia exercise for reader enjoyment; see this example of how writers can compare anything to anything without the items being a distinct collective entity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very dismissive. The artist treats them as a set, e.g. releasing specifically the singles from the albums as if they belong together[29]. Here is another article from a RS purely about the series[30]. Fram (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would releasing the singles together mean Lil Wayne treats them as a such "as if they belong together"? Could you elaborate? And while that would be interesting, an artist's own views on their work are secondary to how reliable sources consider it. The Vulture piece is more in depth though, but I'm not convinced as of yet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That first part was just a reply to the weird claim that they "are not a distinct "set" or "series" just because they have titles in common." The artist considers them as a series, as evidenced by the titles (duh) but also by specifically releasing the singles from these albums together, as if they belong together somehow. While I have no issue with the discussion about whether they are notable as a series and whether they should have a separate article or not, I was rather amazed about the claim that they aren't even a series. But the singles set is not an argument for or against deletion, the Vulture article (which you commented upon, thanks) is an argument against deletion and pro notability. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want on whether or not it's a "series" but that's the wrong argument. That ignores the much more precise Wikipedia policy cited by the nominator and myself: WP:SYNTH. As currently written, the article has nothing on what makes the albums a distinct collective entity, and merely lists release dates and singles and producers and guests stars. All info is repeated from the respective individual album articles. Any media article comparing/ranking them as a group is trivia as said above. Many of the article's existing sources are unreliable fansites and blogs, and the few reliable sources are about individual albums or songs. Recurring lyrical themes are valid but can be explained at Lil Wayne's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the sources in the article or the state of the article, that's not what AfD is about in general, unless it is so egregious that WP:TNT (or in less severe cases draftification) are the best solution. There are plenty of reliable sources treating these albums as a series (and yes, even ranking them means that people consider them a series, something related and comparable and at the same time distinct from the things not listed), and the Vulture article goes way indepth about them, treating them as a separate, important, aspect of his total oeuvre worth discussing as a group: "his Carter records occupy a specific place in his staggering discography [...] But what can looking back at the previous four installments tell us about Wayne as an artist? About how he’s evolved, and what his entire career means?" (that article calls them a "series" and "a project" as well). Fram (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my comment above is rooted in multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON, conceptually. There just probably wouldn't much actual merging because I imagine much of this was aped from already existing articles in better shape. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching for almost an hour, I thought there's no such thing as a "album series" on Wikipedia, but then I stumbled across this category and I found this album series. With reliable sources, we can actually establish this as a valid album series. Vulture's writers had a lot to say about Tha Carter album series; its meaning, ranking and so on. Many reliable publications ranked albums from the series, publications like XXL, The Guardian, and Vibe just to mention a few. One thing we neglect to acknowledge is that those rankings are detailed, they dive into the works and the makings of the album series, they are not just "1–5" lists. dxneo (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lil Wayne albums discography, or Keep. The sources presented in this discussion do suggest that the albums can be considered a distinct collection of work, but the content would fit into a section on the article covering Lil Wayne's album discography. Svampesky (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

This helps people learn more about the Carter albums without them having to do much digging. It’s easier to just pull up the website that’s filled with reliable and important information about the topic (Carter albums) without the worrying about there being unnecessary information about other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwaikdoviwbwwko (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fram. The artist is clearly intending these to be viewed as part of series of albums. Meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 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 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I agree that moving the article and name to Chato Chico is appropriate. A report on disaster preparedness said in its introduction, [translated] "The Cura Mori District was created by Law No. 15434 of February 19, 1965, initially consisting of the towns of Cucungará as capital, Pozo de los Ramos, Chato Grande, Chato Chico, Pueblo Nuevo, Buenos Aires, Santa Rosa, Fundo Casaraná, Vega Monteverde, La Para and the town of Chato." Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2020-2022 (PDF). July 2020.. Law No. 15434 sets out the borders, and says in part, [translated] "follow this boundary line to the summit of Loma Blanca and continue until you find the Tabanco road, extending to the Piura River bed, following its course, upstream, it reaches the point of the royal road that borders the town of Chato, continuing to the outer part of the urban area;".

I am not sure why the NGA cross-identified Chato with Chato Chico, but sources now talk about Nuevo Chato Chico in reports like Municipalidad Distrital de Cura Mori. Plan de Prevención y Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres 2019-2021 (PDF)..

As an aside, the hamlet (case or caserio) of Chato Grande is now quite separate as it was incorporated in 2013 into a new municipality called "Almirante Grau" along with the population centers of the hamlets of Nuevo Paraíso, Ciudad Noé and Nuevo San Pedro. This nugget of information is found in the first report cited above.

It is possible that the town of Chato (pueblo de Chato) of 1965 is the Nuevo Chato Chico of the 2020s. I found nothing explicit saying so. But the town clearly exists both visually and in documentation. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why there are doubts about the existence of this place. Google Maps found it in less than a second with a search for "Chato, Peru", and locates it where the article says it is. Athel cb (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[31][32] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf College, Kent

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this college of the University of Kent, and added an independent reference confirming its establishment in 2008. I cannot see significant coverage in independent sources, however - the reference I have added has only one sentence of coverage - , and do not think it is notable independently of University of Kent. I originally tagged it with notability issues in 2022, and redirected it to University of Kent yesterday, but this has been reverted by another editor. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Woolf College meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions and should be kept as a separate article. A precedent for keeping articles on colleges of the University of Kent was set in the Turing College AfD discussion (2018), where the result was to keep the article. The discussion highlighted that Kent is a semi-collegiate university, and each of its colleges plays a unique role in student life, not merely as halls of residence, but with distinct functions such as administrative offices and college masters.

Specifically, the Turing College AfD concluded that, like other Kent colleges (such as Eliot, Rutherford, Keynes, and Darwin), Turing College warranted a separate article due to its role within the university and the broader context of collegiate universities in the UK, such as Lancaster and York, which also have articles for their individual colleges. The same reasoning should apply to Woolf College, as it too is a functioning residential and academic unit within the University of Kent.

Historical Precedent: Just as Turing College was retained as a standalone article despite concerns about notability, Woolf College should be given the same consideration. The semi-collegiate structure of the University of Kent supports the argument that each college has independent significance and contributes uniquely to the university.

Consistency with Other Colleges: There is a clear pattern of keeping separate articles for colleges at Kent, and merging them into a single article would risk losing the distinct identity and contributions of each college. The precedent established in the Turing College AfD discussion supports this approach.

Given these points and the Turing College precedent, I believe Woolf College should be kept as a separate article, consistent with the treatment of other Kent colleges. GreenALC (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I would like to expand on my initial points regarding Woolf College’s notability. While the college's primary role is to provide accommodation, it also hosts a variety of academic events, including international conferences and lectures focused on subjects related to Virginia Woolf and broader literary themes. These events contribute to the college’s unique identity within the University of Kent and enhance its cultural and academic significance.

As an example, in 2018, Woolf College hosted the 28th Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, which brought together scholars from around the world. More recently, in 2024, the college hosted a lecture by Professor Rachel Bowlby on the theme of Virginia Woolf and the Property Market, demonstrating its continuing academic engagement with the legacy of Woolf and her relevance in contemporary discourse.

This active role in hosting significant academic events contributes to the college’s function as an academic and cultural hub within the university, much like Turing College, Eliot College, and Darwin College, which have retained individual articles due to their distinct history, facilities, and contributions to the university’s structure. Woolf College, in the same vein, fulfills a comparable function and warrants the same consideration for a separate article.

I hope this additional information helps clarify why Woolf College meets the standards for notability and why it should be retained as a standalone article. GreenALC (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Per Miraclepine's redirect target below. ~~I'm terribly sorry about this, because~~ I'd rather this were kept but it doesn't pass WP:GNG on the current sourcing and there's simply nothing out there to get it past WP:GNG - which is the standard we are asked to evaluate even degree-awarding institutions against. Presumed notability is less compelling an argument for a relatively new institution. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does it or doesn't it meet GNG? Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from GNG. Source 1 is a passing mention

. 2, 8 (Kentish Gazette) I can't access (why are they linked through LexisNexis??). 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 are by Kent

. 4 is by a partner, not independent

. 7 doesn't mention the subject

. 12 is an announcement for a seminar held there; trivial, primary, and non-independent

. 13 is a book edited and written by lecturers at Kent; not independent

. 14 is an announcement for a conference held at Woolf College; trivial, primary, non-independent

. 15 is a trivial listing for the same conference

. 16 yet another trivial, non-independent mention as the venue for the conference

.

Even if the Kentish Gazette pieces are both IRS SIGCOV, that's still only one GNG source when multiple are required. JoelleJay (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_Kent#Colleges as ATD absent notability. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University_of_Kent#Colleges with thanks to Miraclepine for the ATD. I have been watching this for some time, and could not, in good conscience, vote keep, as the sourcing is missing, but I did not think delete was appropriate for a college of an established university that may well become notable. What was lacking was an appropriate place to redirect, thus preserving page history and allowing a spinout article in the future should notability be established. Noting the section on the University of Kent page, this is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants divided between Keep and Redirection to University of Kent#Colleges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Colombia–Nicaragua relations

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

Unnecessary split of Colombia–Nicaragua relations. In fact, I'm not familiar with any other timeline article on foreign relations. This page covers some incidents not mentioned on the parent article, yes, but there's no reason it couldn't be covered there instead — the parent article is not very long and would absolutely benefit from more context. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. We'd literally be deleting every timeline on wikipedia if we accepted the nominator's rationale as valid. Timelines are a valid secondary form of presenting content. Per NLIST they are not considered a duplicate or a content fork of an identical topic covered within a prose article. Given that the prose version of the article has lots of WP:SIGCOV sourcing; it would be an easy matter of using those sources to improve the sourcing on the timeline page.4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Lists, Colombia, and Nicaragua. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Colombia–Nicaragua relations. If you want to propose a merge so the parent article covers this, you can generally follow the instructions at WP:MERGE rather than nominating it for deletion. That includes just boldly doing it yourself – I doubt anyone would object when no one's really touched it since it was created in 2007. I agree that the main article should have this context, rather than having this unnecessary split. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No sourcing, except for the last sentence in the last entry. There is no verification of any of this list, save that final citation. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change my Delete vote to Merge, makes more sense — Maile (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Merge into the Colombia–Nicaragua relations page. Neither is very big. Sheesh. Yilloslime (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only one source, no need to cover this topic twice. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no compelling reason to delete. No problem with the article cannot be resolved with improvements. As for the existence of these types of articles, here are some international relations timeline articles: Timeline of Hungary–European Union relations, Timeline of Japan–United States relations Mason7512 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between Keep and Merge outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since the topic is not large enough to warrant a split. Do this without prejucide for other timelines; at the same time, the existence of other timelines is not relevant to the outcome of this particular timeline. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy

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

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources found in the first AFD, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker Marie Molloy. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1st source listed is WP:HUFFPOCON, 2nd and 3rd don't mention her just a controversy she was involved with, 4th is a blog post that mentions her on the same controversy, 5th is a dead link, 6th is a petition, 7th, 8th, 11th are from same site about the same thing but could potentially be an ok source, 9th is a blog, 10th is the same thing as 8th. 12th is dead.

So really there's one potentially good soucre there, doesn't exactly establish notability. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


From	Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Currently used in article	https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/	no	presumably	presumably	no	X	Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr	no	no	presumably	no	X	Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
	https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382	no	no	presumably	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy	no	no		no	X	its just a link to their author page
	https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/	no	no		no	X	ditto
	https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/	yes	no	?	no	X	article about herself
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/	no	no	?	no	X	blog post by her
	Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605.	?	no	?	no	X	dead link to ebook she wrote
	https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php	yes	no	presumably	no	X	interview of her
	https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../	no	yes	debatable	yes	X	just quotes a tweet of hers
	https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html	no	yes	?	no	X	she's not mentioned
	https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/	no	yes	?	no	X	ditto
	https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113	no	no	no	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender	no		debatable		X	its just the topic page for all trans articles
	https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/	yes	no	debatable	no	X	article about herself
	https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32	no	yes	yes	yes	X	leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
	https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and	no	no	?	no	X	just lists her a particpating in a talk
	https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/	no	yes	yes	yes	X	just quotes a tweet of hers
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110	no	no	?	no	X	quotes her amongst other trans people
	https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html	no	no	presumably	no	X	her commenting on something, not about her
	https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/	no	yes	?	yes	X	briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
	http://www.thetrans100.com/about/	no	presumably		no	X	just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
	https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees	no	presumably	?	no	X	list of people who received an honor from an org
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf	no	presumably	?	no	X	ditto
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word	no	no	presumably	no	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur	no	no	presumably	no	X	ditto
	https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html	no	no	no	no	X	ditto
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814	yes	no	?	no	X	interview of her
	https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322	not really	yes	no	yes	X	not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
	https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time	no	yes	?	no	X	doesn't mention parker
	https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137	no	yes	?	no	X	ditto
	https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html	maybe	yes	probably not	yes	X	perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
	https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html	no	yes	debatable	yes	X	doesn't mention parker
	http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles	?	yes	no	?	X	ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
	https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131	no	yes	no	yes	X	short blog post it looks like
	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur	no	no	presumably	yes	X	an article she wrote, not about her
	https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race	no	yes	presumably	yes	X	doesn't mention her
	http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/	not really	?	no	no	X	a petition defending her
	https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415	not really	?	no	no	X	ditto
	https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903	not really	yes	?	yes	X	mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
	https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827	probably	yes	?	yes	?	unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD	https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video	not really	no	?	no	X	reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
	https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag	not really	no	?	no	X	article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
	links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for		no		no	X	these aren't sources
	https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency	not really	yes	yes	yes	?	short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
	https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/	yes	?	?	no?	X	its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what are the best sources? interviews being primary sources is based on WP:Interviews, since any information they give about themselves is primary and that's what the article is about TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)

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

The result was speedy keep‎ as withdrawn by the nominator (they did not use the standard AfD closure templates, which at the very least throws off the archival bot at the delsort lists) (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flood

The result was KEEP. WP:NAC: withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your feedback, 4meter4. My WP:BEFORE yielded less, but I agree with your conclusion. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This subject fails WP:GNG for not being the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources unrelated to himself. He also fails alternative criteria from WP:NMUSIC and WP:NAUTHOR because his works in these fields are not notable, except apparently for Oceana Fine which has its own article. This is a 1E author at best and can be mentioned or even discussed with due weight in the OF article. A standalone article for this author is unencyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, and Australia. JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The article is in a terrible state, but the author is clearly notable. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as the winner of the Miles Franklin Award for his novel Oceana Fine; widely recognized as Australia's top literary prize (equivalent to winning the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in the United States). Clearly passes criterion 3 and 4 of WP:NAUTHOR as the winner of that prize. I can't imagine that any sort of WP:BEFORE was done as there is lots of WP:SIGCOV in google books. Also you can access his biographical entry in The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature through the Wikipedia Library. Here is his biography in the Australia Literature Gateway which is published by the University of Queensland in collaboration with the Australian National Library. There is also coverage of him in [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] Best. 4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Nikita Hand

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

Not notable, simply because she was recently mentioned in the news Nswix (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. WP:VICTIM applies. Guliolopez (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:VICTIM and will not pass WP:INDEPTH due to lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE on Hand. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In Googling, I cannot find anything of note other than the McGregor case.--A bit iffy (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grahaml35. Coverage of Hand is limited to her connection with McGregor’s sexual assault case and the related investigations and trial. Relevant details about the crime and her involvement as a victim should be incorporated into a dedicated subsection within the "Controversies" section of the article on McGregor. Mooonswimmer 06:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Hand is already done and adequate in the McGregor article. Spideog (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with the Subjects notable only for one event policy and the WP:VICTIM policy. Spideog (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. Spleodrach (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is in blatant violation of WP:VICTIM. The subsection already created on the article for Conor McGregor is sufficient. Whynotlolol (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris

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

Article fails general notability guidelines Nxcrypto Message 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pics.io

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

Defunct? software for which no notability appeared to have ever been attained. I cannot identify a merger or redirect target Star Mississippi 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Software. Star Mississippi 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a cloud storage image plug-in...of which there is very little use of overall because most users of cloud storage edit images on their devices, not in a janky web interface that doesn't even offer any clarity on who developed it. Wasn't notable in this guise, not notable in the usual 'pivot to AI' sense, either. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another bit of software, nothing inherently notable about it. Also, the editor that created the article was possibly an undisclosed paid editor based on their arguably spammy contribs. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Lupu

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

Delete as not notable - my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources to establish or support WP:NACTOR - the article as it stands makes some claims about acting awards, but I couldn't confirm these, and in any case the awards do not seem notable enough in their own right. The only substantial webpages about the subject that I found were https://www.cinemagia.ro/actori/dan-lupu-41852/ and https://www.filmneweurope.com/news/romania-news/item/108375-fne-europa-distribution-distributor-of-the-month-dan-lupu-transilvania-film but neither gave me any sense that there might be extant references that could be used to support notability. That said, it is possible that there are better sources in Romanian that I did not find, and if that is the case I would happily rescind my nomination. Finally, I note that the article has remained unreferenced since its creation, and there is no corresponding page on rowiki, which I might have expected if the subject were notable. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Romania. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Knutson, Jacob (11 April 2024). "U.S. aid official says famine has begun in northern Gaza". Axios. Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 24 April 2024.

[2] "The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: a human-made catastrophe". The Guardian. 19 March 2024. Archived from the original on 10 May 2024. Retrieved 22 March 2024.

[3] "Imminent famine in northern Gaza is 'entirely man-made disaster': Guterres". UN News. 18 March 2024. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 3 April 2024.

[4] ttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-india/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]