Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 20

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 17 (Tue) September 16 (Mon) September 15 (Sun) More...

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

< August 19	August 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hares Youssef

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

BLP which relies mainly on self-published sources for a range of self-promo claims. Many of the sources were duplicates (to increase the apparent numbers perhaps). No proof of anything. Given his mention in the FinCen files I have major reservations about the accuracy of anything here. Not verifiable, no independent notability coverage so delete or merge into contentious pages such as Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This page is a dynamic biography of a living person, with a consistent history of edits that accurately reflect real-life events and achievements, all of which are directly supported by a diverse array of reference sources.

The claim to delete the page based on "no proof of anything," along with references to conspiracy theories and paid black PR articles from the 2020 U.S. Presidential election period, only serve to weaken the deletion request and undermine the credibility and objectivity of the editor.

Any potential mistakes or inconsistencies are subject to correction through evidence-based arguments and will be addressed immediately upon identification. The duplicate sources are being removed.

I strongly object to the deletion of this page. Ensuring absolute absence of manipulative and self-promotional behaviour and willingness to gather additional reliable sources, while respecting Knowledge (XXG)'s Guidelines, maintaining complete transparency and engagement in constructive criticism and further mediation. Robert-Rami Youssef (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note the guidelines on single purpose accounts and conflict of interest. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I'm not seeing much for RS, this is an unclear notability, as is the Kiev post used in the article. Rest of the sourcing appears non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I cannot find enough sources that meet the significant coverage requirement to prove that the subject is notable. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Manhattan Boutique Real Estate

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

I saw that the article has been tagged by Schazjmd for notability, so I decided to check.

The short version of what I found:

Nothing, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, goes anywhere at all towards showing notability in Knowledge (XXG)'s terms.

The long version:

At present the article has 21 references. Most of those (13 out of the 21) are press releases. Of the other 8, one is an interview with Joan Brothers, the head of the company; one has no mention of the company at all; one has a single sentence mention of the company; one has a single sentence mention not even of the company, but of Joan Brothers; one has a single two sentence quote from Joan Brothers; one is a broken link; one is behind a paywall; for the last remaining one I can't find any text except "We Are All About Our Clients - Manhattan Boutique Real Estate".
The first ten Google hits when I searched were: two pages on the company's own web site; the company's accounts on FaceBook, X, Linkedin, & Instagram; Joan Brothers's account on Linkedin; the company's listing on Yelp; a promotional video posted by the company to YouTube; a page about Joan Brothers on a website which says that it exists to "empower ... small business owners and accelerate their success", i.e. to promote them. That's the first ten, but the next 20 are no better. I tried another search facility instead of Google, and found nothing better. JBW (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that what I wrote above assumes that anyone reading it knows enough about Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines to understand why what I said means that there is no evidence of notability, but for inexperienced editors that may not be so. For the benefit of any such inexperienced editors, the main point of those guidelines is that to show that a subject is notable enough for an article, there must be references to substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Each of the references and other pages that I have listed above is one or both of not independent of the company or not substantial coverage of the company. JBW (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete As I mentioned at Talk:Manhattan Boutique Real Estate when explaining my concern about notability, I was unable to find any significant coverage of this firm. My search results found lots of self-promotion, which of course a business should engage in, but no independent coverage. The article is written objectively, not puffed up with promotional language. There simply aren't any reliable sources to support WP:NCORP. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, most sourcing is PR items or puffy/flowery articles. I can't find much more we can use; the combination of words pop up, but nothing about this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I trust JBW's assessment of the sourcing on the page so I only conducted my own WP:BEFORE to see if there was anything useful. Unfortunately, the only thing I was able to verify is that the company exists. Nothing as far as significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I re-did the sources check that JBW has done, and I totally agree that none of these sources are reliable, none of the so-called coverages are significant. The notability is vain. Nihonjinatny (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Not enough support for Deletion, even after two relistings. Liz 23:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Samsun clashes (1920)

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

Article doesn't seem notable, sources are not reliable or verifiable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment tr:Samsun is featured but as far as I can tell does not mention this - I have linked this discussion on that article talk page in the hope someone knows better than me. Also if the clashes with British were significant I guess one of you military experts can find an English language source Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've searched and have not found anything. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They have replied by pointing me to tr:Samsun_tarihi#Millî_Mücadele_sırasında but I am not competant to say which of the cites in that are reliable Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Liz 23:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tal Afar uprising

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

This doesn't seem like a notable event. There are no records cited of casualty figures or combatant numbers. The British commander isn't even noted. Not to mention, this article is written pretty poorly and with a clear nationalist slant. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iraq, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Did the nominator conduct a WP:BEFORE search? The nominator would benefit from reading WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: I will note that Chapter 8 of British Miscalculations does give some coverage to this rebellion (though they at times write the name as Tal'Afar). The introduction of the same book also comments as follows: The Fall of Tal Afar in June 1920 was the signal for a general uprising of all the tribes in the north. It spread to the middle of the Euphrates, and the position became serious. There are other works I see that describe it as the "Mesopotamian Rebellion of 1920", if that would help with a source search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. According to Michael Andrew Kappelmann, Parallel Campaigns: The British in Mesopotamia, 1914–1920, and the United States in Iraq, 2003–2004 (2014), p. 53, the "insurgent rising at Tal Afar, a Turkmen village in the northwest Mosul vilayet, was the single deadliest incident since the end of the war. . . In all, 16 British soldiers, including two officers, were dead." He cites Aylmer Haldane, The Insurrection in Mesopotamia, 1920, and Gertrude Bell, Review of the Civil Administration of Mesopotamia. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Liz 23:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dirk Van de Put

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, except with reference to other articles (i.e. Irene Rosenfeld and Mondelez International). Tule-hog (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: He is a prominent CEO, so I guess I'm testing deletionist waters with this. Does read a bit like a resume, which could just need attention.

Tule-hog (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, prominent CEO with enough coverage to meet the GNG (although the article is lacking) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Chairman and CEO of a Nasdaq 100/S&P 100 company. Plenty of reliable source content that could be added. Tule-hog should familiarise themselves with WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This needn’t be deleted - he is CEO of a prominent multinational company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:746C:C300:F416:87C1:C67A:256 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD isn't cleanup but presenting a few of the sources may help round out this discussion. Hoping to resolve this with one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ali Alipour (weightlifter)

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

fails notability. another article with fake information. this guy won gold medal in Asian "Junior" Championship which is not notable enough. and that part about "first place in the Olympic selection competitions held in Asia" is completely wrong. he didn't achieve anything notable yet. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. fails notability. Tehonk (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't want to soft-delete this as it was only created two weeks ago. Relisting for a more obvious consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The subject didn't meet the general or subject specific inclusion criteria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Slovakia national under-15 football team

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

"The Slovakia national under-15 football team is Slovakia's national under 15 football team". Yeah, this page fails WP:DICDEF. It's nothing more than a circular definition with a couple of insignificant details attached. As for the potential of the page, U15 national teams are not inherently notable either. Look at Template:UEFA under-15 teams, for instance; some major nations including the Netherlands doesn't have a U15 page. This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but rather stems from the underlying fact that U15 national teams often lack significant coverage. They're children, after all, with negligible matchday attendances, tv broadcasting and print media coverage, compared to national teams of higher age groups. Therefore, nuke this page and its 13-years-out-of-date squad. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Slovak Football Association where it is mentioned and fully-protect the page to prevent further recreation. There is no corresponding article on SK Knowledge (XXG) to copy over English article either; even so, I find a lot of even local sportspeople articles there to be lower quality than here. If someone happens to find across similar youth team articles like this, I have no prejudice against nominating those for deletion. I also was wondering... Are there articles about any age group of national football teams that receive significant coverage? What are some examples of WP:SIRS for one age group? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 23:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note that full protection is an extreme measure on Knowledge (XXG), and is not something we throw around on any old article without prior edit wars, massive vandalism, repeated recreations etc. Please stop advocating for full protection/salting where it's entirely unwarranted. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Azarctic (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Scott Lassiter

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

Article was previously declined in draftspace for notability reasons, but was forced through to mainspace anyway. Political candidates (especially state-level figures) rarely if ever meet WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES for common outcomes for candidates. Even if one were to look at Lassiter's political career as a town council, Apex, North Carolina is not a city of global reputation that would make their municipal politicians inherently notable (the Bearcat test). If we were to look at the article through a GNG lens, the current sources point to Lassiter's campaign, his foundation, and Ballotpedia; none of which are reliable in establishing notability. One could make a weak case that the secondary sources about his wife's affair with the speaker of the NC house and the lawsuit, but that is not enough to establish notability either. Bkissin (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand who forged this? SJones919 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about forging? Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. For the record, the notability test for municipal councillors isn't "my" test, it's standard consensus — but indeed, municipal councillors are accepted as notable enough for Knowledge (XXG) articles only in two specific scenarios: either (a) they serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of London, New York City, Toronto, Paris or Berlin, or (b) they can be referenced to such an unusual depth and volume and range of coverage, far, far beyond just what all municipal councillors routinely get in their own local media, that he would have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater significance than the norm. But Apex NC is not the kind of place that would pass criterion A, and this article is relying principally on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and thus is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to satisfy criterion B. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC).
Delete as a current candidate for state senate with no other major office or other claim to notability, per WP:NPOL. If he wins the seat we can revisit the case, but even then this blow-by-blow description of very minor events should not be kept. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list and although he has enough academic work experience to be validly on that list, none of it rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Town council for a mid-sized town in North Carolina is about on the fence for notability (this isn't a small, middle of nowhere place, nor is it NYC). This reads as a standard resume, nothing terribly notable. There is some coverage about the "scandal" , but I don't think that makes this fellow notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Bkissin and Bearcat's arguments.50.46.167.81 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Liz 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Reynolds (political scientist)

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

Article originally created to promote this person; it has been toned down a little since then but it remains obvious that it is paraphrased from what was originally a self-authored bio. No evidence of notability. I'm tempted to tag A7/G11. —Compassionate727 20:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. —Compassionate727 20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Not sure if it was self-authored or a fan who originally created the article back in 2011 but he is a professor which is usually the test when it comes to academics. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, South Africa, England, California, Indiana, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Merely being a professor is not enough for notability. But a search of JSTOR found many reviews of his books , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per sources presented by David Eppstein. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per David Eppstein. Subject has some well-cited works and has received media attention for his work on democracy. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Meets the criteria as a scholar and author per WP:NAUTHOR. The promotional tone of the article doesn’t impact the notability of the topic itself. If the subject is notable, the page can always be improved, and this argument cannot be used as a basis for nomination. It also seems like his publication in News Observer gained attention:
https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html
https://www.gq.com/story/north-carolina-andrew-reynolds-political-science-interview

50.46.167.81 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 23:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

JSS Medical College

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

Seriously poor referencing, and my BEFORE revealed nothing useful. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, and Karnataka. Spiderone 21:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable at this time. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. The article cites mostly primary sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

JSS Banashankari Arts, Commerce & S.K.Gubbi Science College

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

Barely referenced, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. Spiderone 21:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Another poorly-sourced page related to JSS Medical College. The school exists, but there is no significant coverage to demonstrate notability for a WP article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

JSS Dental College

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

Unreferenced. WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. Spiderone 21:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete due to non-notability. Unsourced article; no WP:SIGCOV. Looks like a department/affiliate of JSS Medical College which is also nominated for deletion for non-notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. It would be helpful if some of the participants here who are familiar with the Hebrew Knowledge (XXG) brought over some of the sources on this article there to the English version. It would help avoid a return trip to AFD. Liz 00:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Gad Amos

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two reference, both are just announcements of appointments. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG reference. Article says he was appointed to but never played on the national team. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify. The longevity of the footballer, as well as being considered one of Israel's top three goalkeepers (which is the number of goalkeepers in a national squad), actually points to the article having lots of potential. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 and the GNG. As one of Israel's leading goalkeepers, Amos has been awarded 2023–24 keeper of the year in Israel's Superleague, while playing as a Jewish footballer in Israel's leading Arab football team. Nominator, who does remarkable work at the new page patrol, may have forgotten this once to look at Hewiki where Amos' notable awards and additional references are listed. The intro is focused on references instead of sources. Possibly comes with blessed work on the new page patrol. gidonb (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. About 15 New Page Patrol-ers do 75% of the new page patrol work, and with a backlog of over 15,000 articles, (not counting redirects) there's only so much we can do on each article; we're not really able to search for SNG criteria like awards when the article editors didn't put any in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

All a click away. I know you have taken a lot on your plate so tread softly. Kudos for your contributions to Knowledge (XXG)! gidonb (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Gidonb, clearly notable - where is the search of Hebrew language sources (or indeed any sources???) by the nominator? Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Yes, sourcing should be much more expected of 15 NPP'ers handling 75% of NPP work with a backlog of 15,000 articles than of the zillions of editors creating them. And NPP'ers getting criticisms like this is sure to help trying to get more people to do more reviews. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and WP:COMMONSENSE apply to all. Whilst we all appreciate work that is done by NPP, in future feel free to ask at WP:FOOTBALL if you are unsure about a footballer notability, it's likely to be less time consuming than a 7 day AFD... Giant Snowman 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that the first addresses my point (which was the expectation on "who best to do this?" ) or that what you are implying by the second (a vague essay) is applicable. That said, I said what I had to say and leave it at that and wish you the best. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Per the Hebrew sources, they look okay, also I think it's a bit unfair to think that North8000 is able to do a WP:BEFORE on Hebrew which he probably doesn't know a word of. There was nothing wrong with his nomination. Govvy (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep – In a quick look, I hadn't found anything to justify a vote for deletion due to the player's time in relevant teams in Israel, if the sources in Hebrew check out WP:SIGCOV, I endorse the others. Svartner (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I think this article should be kept, based on Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Football/Notability criteria 1 Whizkin (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pitra Romadoni Nasution

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. A lawyer in Indonesia. I reviewed the 8 references. One is a dead link and the other 7 are about cases that he worked on. So no references even on him much less GNG references. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and fail WP:GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Davidelit (Talk) 03:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Whether or not WP:BISHOPS applies here and disregarding a sockpuppet, I still see a consensus to Keep this article which, it's argued, meets GNG. Liz 00:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

John Fenwick (bishop)

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

All sources are currently primary, and much of the content is currently unsupported by sources. WP:PRIMARY applies here: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." All sources I can locate appear to be about specific negative incidents involving the subject and are not particularly helpful for creating a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep 1) No evidence of WP:BEFORE search, and it's pretty obvious one was not done because 1, 2, 3 and other search engine results show plenty of mentions, over time, in precisely the ways you'd expect a bishop presiding over an area to be mentioned. 2) Per the relevant SNG, WP:BISHOPS, Anglican community bishops are presumptively notable, and nothing in the nomination statement even attempts to rebut it (and such attempts would fail anyways per 1). Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Did you not bother reading my rationale where I made clear I had searched for sources? WP:BISHOPS is complete rubbish, it has no community consensus behind it but nonetheless it claims to apply "major Christian denominations" such as the Anglican Communion of which the Free Church of England with about 10 churches is obviously not. By the way, the sources you have provided are very poor. They do not contribute to notability per WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The third source for example is an article about the appointment of another person which features a brief quote from Fenwick. How could an experienced editor such as yourself think that establishes notability? AusLondonder (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you're right--there was a trivial mention of effort without specifics. Next time, I'd recommend you not bury the discussion of any efforts after a discussion of irrelevant policy. PRIMARY only matters if there are no secondary sources on which an article can be written, so by wording your nomination the way that you did, I managed to miss that you'd done any work of the sort, and, finding plenty of sources myself, AGF'ed to the point that I failed to go back and read closely to see if there were later, contradictory arguments. You can't say "There are only primary sources!" and "The secondary sources I found were rubbish!" because if the second were true, the first wouldn't bear mentioning.

Per WP:BISHOPS, bishops presiding over a large enough area among recognized denominations are presumed notable. Presumed notable means that you have to demonstrate that notability does not exist and/or that he is not covered by that SNG. You are using the wrong standard to evaluate the coverage--it doesn't have to be in depth and detail about Fenwick as a person. It demonstrates coverage of Fenwick as the holder of an appropriate ecclesiastical appointment which was the entire point of my results show plenty of mentions, over time, in precisely the ways you'd expect a bishop presiding over an area to be mentioned statement. You want to argue that the Free Church of England consecrates bishops in a way inconsistent with BISHOPS? Super, feel free to.

It is entirely possible that there's enough coverage of Fenwick to meet GNG, but that's not required, which is why I didn't start out by arguing it. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing Let's look at some additional sources:
JoEH review of a 2004 book authored by Fenwick published by T&T Clark appearing in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. That's one source contributing to notability under WP:AUTHOR. Looks like it also may have been published by A&C Black as ISBN 9780567084330.
Since this is Paywalled and I have access, the review is ~530 words by a Grayson Carter of Fuller Seminary Arizona, decidedly mixed, concluding, "Though Fenwick is to be commended for producing a most detailed account of the history of the FCE, had his research been more comprehensive (including material published in this JOURNAL), much of the unfortunate confusion contained in his narrative could have been avoided." Writing a scholarly book about his own splinter denomination to mixed reviews? I'm not sure I can think of a more bishop-of-an-offshoot-Anglican-church thing. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like he also had a 1995 book Worship in Transition: The Twentieth Century Liturgical Movement published by Bloomsbury, ISBN 9781441152350.

Gorgias Press has some other works of his which appear to be specialized academic works. More investigation needed to see if they are themselves reviewed or cited.

Telegraph article from 2021, definitely independent RS and contributes to basic notability, even absent his status as a bishop, although it clearly does verify that.

this claims to be a reprint of a published letter to The Daily Telegraph in 2017. I haven't been able to find it on the website, but newspapers.com should be able to verify it, I expect. Getting a letter published as one of a few ecclesiastical authors in a national publication is entirely commensurate with clergy notability.

So even if we entirely discount the BISHOPS argument, there's enough here to meet GNG/ANYBIO, and probably AUTHOR too. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to meet my understanding. It seems that Fenwick meets GNG/ANYBIO, likely AUTHOR and arguably BISHOPS. SJIvey (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep I have been considering this further. It seems only sensible to keep Fenwick as he meets the criteria of being an Anglican bishop. The other bishops in the Reformed Episcopal Church have articles (save Paul Hunt of the Southern Diocese - perhaps an article should be made for him? Similarly, it is clear that, although not all of Fenwick's publications have made it onto his article, it seems that he also meets the criteria for AUTHOR. SJIvey (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE, per below. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please could the person who has nominated this article for deletion kindly explain their rationale, so others can understand and agree or give alternative views? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinlloydsmith (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment while WP:BISHOPS is an essay without the support of community consensus, it is clear Fenwick doesn't even meet the criteria which states "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." In what world is the Free Church of England a "major Christian denomination"? Fenwick must meet WP:BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - if someone can demonstrate that he meets that criteria, I will happily withdraw the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Fenwick clearly meets the criteria in WP:BISHOPS as a GAFCON bishop. The Free Church of England is part of GAFCON which is the communion of the majority of Anglicans. It is Anglicanism that is a "major Christian denomination" and the Free Church of England is part of this through its participation in GAFON. Arrowe6365 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a very interestingly timed edit. Please disclose if you have any connection with this. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no connection other than agreeing with its principle. It seems to be an eminently sensible edit given the Anglican Realignment post 2003 and its development into GAFCON. Arrowe6365 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the timing is inadvisable, but moreover it's unnecessary: The defining aspects of those religious organizations mentioned, none of which are monolithic, is that they have bishops over larger areas, not just one congregation as some movements style what would otherwise be "senior pastors" in American Evangelical megachurches. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

BISHOPS is a de facto SNG, because essentially every time I invoke it, the bishop article in question is kept. I've seen articles on a few pre-20th century bishops known by (and for) nothing but their name be deleted, but no contemporaneous bishop. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I'm neutral as to whether he passes GNG, but he does not qualify as a bishop of a major denomination just because he follows the Anglican tradition. The Church of England is a major denomination; the Free Church of England, which is not part of the Anglican Communion, is not. It is simply ridiculous to claim that every splinter group which calls itself Anglican (or Catholic, or Methodist, or Orthodox, or whatever) is a major denomination just because the major representative churches of that tradition are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Necrothesp. I know we frequently disagree but this is such a plainly absurd argument, to pretend all bishops of fringe schism churches are notable at the same level as major denomination bishops and have a free pass from GNG requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The issue of BISHOPS isn't one of orthodoxy, on which Knowledge (XXG) has no official opinion, but size and area of oversight, where Fenwick appears to have a typical see, not a single congregation. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Per the investigation at Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Arrowe6365 SJIvey has now been confirmed as a sock of the article creator Arrowe6365. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour attempting to subvert this AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Struck. Regrettable indeed. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as there is significant coverage here which while negative is certainly independent. The academic reviews of his works also contribute to WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. WP:BISHOPS is even more well-established than the longstanding custom of keeping articles on dioceses of major traditions. It's not for Knowledge (XXG) to nitpick whether communion with the see of Canterbury is the sine qua non of episcopal notability; the FCE is a 150+ year old church in the Anglican tradition and Fenwick is the bishop primus thereof. Beyond WP:BISHOPS, we also have a WP:GNG pass on sources in the Telegraph and the Church Times. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Verónica Rodríguez

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

Subject is a fairly unremarkable pornographic actress, cited almost exclusively to industry press and the IMDb-equivalent database for that industry. She has music ventures outside of that field, but none rising, as yet, to an encyclopedic level of notability. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Venezuela. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and has either won or been nominated to several awards in the industry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NoonIcarus: Can you specify what in the article you think constitutes reporting in reliable sources "enough coverage to meet WP:GNG"? As far as I am aware, we do not count nominations towards industry awards towards notability, and the single "win" indicated in the article is not for any of the major industry awards. BD2412 T 00:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

, to give some examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Link #1 is promotional. Link #2 is a standard pornstar interview in AVN. A non-independent churnalism source. Neither contribute to GNG notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How is link #1 promotional? It is an article by El Estímulo, an independent outlet. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No coverage by independent reliable sources found in the article nor in independent searching. The references are low-quality even by porn bio standards. The article even debunks the AVN source mentioned above as industry-generated kayfabe. No reliably-sourced claim for passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as not enough non-promotional coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Belated response @NoonIcarus: The El Estímulo article referenced is puffery-laden prose followed by a call to action for support. Obviously promotional. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

T&M Protection Resources

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

Don't see any material RS coverage, fails NCORP. CEO is new commissioner of the New York Fire Department, so he's notable, but don't see any evidence the company is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources found online at this time. The article cites mostly primary sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is another one where delete seems clear so far, but even a little more discussion is needed to consider it consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Possibly the result of COI/paid (editor has done only this and the article on its CEO, Robert S. Tucker). The only significant article I found was an FTC document saying they had misrepresented their activities in an area. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games. Based on comments by participants, I'm finally closing this discussion as a Merge. Liz 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Anguilla at the 2014 Commonwealth Games

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

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage. Unnecessary fork. Many of these articles have already been deleted, see AfD at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. AusLondonder (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Article is sourced. The previous discussion (which I started) were articles that only stated the country competed, with no other information. Those should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Three primary sources? AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you need to review what primary sources are. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Here are other sources and the nominator clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE. These all mention Anguilla's appearance at the games. Together it should be just enough to pass WP:GNG.
, , , and , Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Strong merge to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games. A bad idea for a standalone article, in that the potential for growth is limited. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
As a WP:ATD, Id agree (especially for the smaller CGAs) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is a stronger consensus for a Merge. The article being discussed could easily overwhelm the skimpy target article, Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I'm not worried about overwhelming a skimpy target article. It's precisely because Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games is skimpy that it needs to be fleshed out, i.e. with writeups of every year Anguilla participated. If anything, it's the presentation of the results in tables that makes it bulky. Some of it could be converted to prose, useless sub-headers removed etc. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

World Championship of Legends

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG- WP:REFBOMBing the lead with a few articles listing the people playing is not significant coverage. This is yet another example of an article that falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. User created this article after being suggested not to unless it met WP:GNG: Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 94#Create a page on 2024 World Championship of Legends, but decided not to listen to advice. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Yet another poor article on these non-notable OAP leagues. AA (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Randi Cogan-Shinder

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

Article previously deleted as "(Expired PROD, concern was: Almost every single claim is not supported by the source. Many sources are unreliable, or make only trivial mention, or a primary like interviews and press releases.)" Nothing seems to have changed since. Refbombing seems to be mainly low-quality sources, largely involving regurgitation of press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Bastun 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I don't find anything about this business person in my search for sources, article reads like a resume. Simple confirmation of business activities, getting sued. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete The Forbes article is solid, IMO. The Grazia article is a typical "women's magazine" article about a product, but it does have some meat. I removed a lot of non-reliable sources from the article but there were a number that I couldn't evaluate. Lamona (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Saddle Creek Records. Liz 23:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Gabardine (band)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a brief biography of the band on AllMusic, it's mentioned in a review of another band's album ("Bemberger, Hughes and Peterson also played together in an obscure band called Gabardine, which released one EP before disbanding in 1998.") and there's another description here (I have no idea if Hard Noise is reliable). toweli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Nebraska. toweli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Saddle Creek Records. It's hard for one-release bands to have gotten enough coverage to meet WP:NBAND. That being said, Gabardine is tied to other bands through former members, making redirect a better option than delete IMO. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 05:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Make-up Designory

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

Non-notable beauty school. Only stories available after a quick search on news.google were a handful of press-release-like mentions. ZimZalaBim 15:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Almost completely non-notable and only referenced by the school's website. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete seems clear so far, but we need at least a little more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - As a private for-profit school and a related cosmetics brand, this one clearly falls under WP:NCORP. I do not find any sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and what is on the page certainly doesn't meet the criteria. We would be looking for multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS and the school website, the only current source, fails under three or all four of those criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment I'm not convinced there aren't sources, but I haven't found any that will meet the notability standards; was the best independent Google result, and it is mostly "who's who at this party" rather than about the studio. The rest were either their own content, or reviews of their makeup products which felt like sponsored content. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. The argument that the list fulfills a recognized navigation purpose and is therefore exempt from our notability guidelines was seen as questionable, especially after the nom added a predecessor-success chain link at the bottom of individual trainer pages, and the entire list is covered by the relevant category. However, I see no valid reason to discard this argument, which means there is no consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Michigan Wolverines football trainers

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

The article fails WP:NLIST. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. In the early years of Michigan football, the trainers played an incredibly important role, akin to coaches. Michigan retained some of the outstanding figures in sports to fill the role. E.g., Mike Murphy, Edward Moulton, Keene Fitzpatrick, Alvin Kraenzlein, Stephen Farrell, and Archie Hahn. The list serves a valid navigational role among and between these major figures. Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@Cbl62: "Akin to coaches"; they ARE assistant coaches, and that in itself is not notable enough to garner their standalone list. The information in the article is already in the trainers' standalone articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

you misunderstand the role of trainers, especially in the 19th century. Yes the biographical info is a short form of what’s in each bio, and that’s as it should be — the individual bios are the main repositories and this list serves as an overview and navigation aide. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, appears to fail WP:NLIST. I could not find anything that discussed Michigan trainers as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Unable to find any coverage from reliable third party sources discussing this grouping to meet the WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. While the trainers might be individually notable, it doesn't equate to notability as a list. Let'srun (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete; no indication that this satisfies WP:NLIST as requested by the nomination, namely discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I spent some time searching and came up empty-handed in this endeavor. Left guide (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Final note: I know that page views are an argument we're not supposed to make, but this article has been viewed almost 5,000 times in the last nine years and is the only connective tissue we have between such major sports figures as Mike Murphy, Edward Moulton, Keene Fitzpatrick, Alvin Kraenzlein, Stephen Farrell, and Archie Hahn. The votes so far ignore that lists are allowed where they serve a useful navigational function. See WP:NLIST ("Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm personally not seeing such a purpose here but you are welcome to differ. Let'srun (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: *The trainers (with articles) are all linked in the assistant coaches section of each Michigan football season that they worked as an assistant coach in. Assistant coaches are not inherently notable, so the list itself is not inherently notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. If all of the trainers had articles then maybe you would have a point (see WP:NCOLLATH), but lists are not simply for convenience. And lists such as these are not simply for those loose connections, as only Murphy is the only one listed who is most notable specifically for his time at Michigan football. The others did more in other sports such as track and field, or did more at other schools, and their time with Michigan football was simply a footnote as evidenced by their respective entries in the list and their individual articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Second reply In regards to connecting them together, I have included a succession box at the bottom of each of the trainers and they are also in the main Michigan Wolverines football coaches category, so concerns such as those are not an issue anymore. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I see this as a case where WP:NLIST's "lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability" plays a valid role. This is a useful list for organizing information on notable subjects with a clear aim. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment To the closer: Since the author of the article is trying to circumvent the discussion by claiming a loophole, please check WP:XFD#CON and analyze the arguments that the deletion votes are making compared to the keep votes instead of simply tally counting or being biased towards (potentially fellow) admins. Thank you. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, that comment is insulting to admins and AFD closers. How did you think maligning a potential closer would be received? Obviously not positively. Try assuming good faith and competency of your fellow editors, don't assume bias. Liz 00:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. No additional participation with two relistings, so there's little point in a third one. Feel free to renominate in one month. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Dean Hawkshaw

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

Hawkshaw fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep I don't see nothing wrong with the article, a full professional Scotland footballer with good basic coverage. Passes WP:BASIC in my view. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Third party sourcing. WP:GNG passes.BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment 12/17 sources are either stats or non-independent of Hawkshaw. Donegallive - Hawkshaw injured an opponent, Courier - he's playing after concussion, Daily Record 1 - "while Dean Hawkshaw has stepped up his rehabilitation from a knee injury", Daily Record 2, routine transfer news and Cumnock Chronicle "GLENAFTON brought new signing Dean Hawkshaw, pictured, into the starting 11 on Saturday and he made an instant impact." That isn't a GNG pass or a pass of BASIC. Dougal18 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Edward Hardin

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

Created by an SPA back in 2008. The only references are links to a patent (the same one, but one is the US patent filing and the other is the Canadian filing) that Hardin and others filed jointly. It also doesn't appear that Hardin was the sole VP of manufacturing in the US for Mobil, which was the reasoning years ago for a declined PROD, but the manufacturing VP for a refinery in Beaumont, Texas. A search for more refs pulls up no reliable sources to support notability. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, Missouri, and Texas. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: "Served in the war, went to university, worked for 40 years and retired" is about the extent of the article. Very basic information and nothing really notable found either. Seems like a routine career. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ----Kinu /_c 02:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. /_Rational 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hepnar

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

This article was rightly PROD'd but the PROD tag was removed. It used to contain a link to one article on a person with this last name but this article was deleted so now you see the limited content on the page. There is the possibility this could be expanded but it's been around for 15 years in, more or less, this shape and we don't have any existing articles on subjects with this last name. I'd speedy it but we don't have a criteria that fits the subject of this article so here we are. Liz 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Liz 16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. An article that contains no information at all. Athel cb (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
There is cs:Antonín Hepnar and d:Q6149049 but the latter may well not be notable as they don't have any sitelinks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
And d:Q4558375, d:Q6149049, d:Q55390339, d:Q95138918 and d:Q90531343 though only Antonín Hepnar and Przemyslaw Niepokoj-Hepnar have sitelinks so these 2 might warrent keeping this if they are notable otherwise though we can probably delete for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong delete. I would probably tag this for speedy deletion under A3 (no content), G8 (pages dependent on deleted page), or G14 (unnecessary disambiguation). I'm assuming most admins would probably see this page and just delete it if it was tagged. TryAgainSooner (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: No articles have "Hepnar" in their title anymore. May qualify as A3 but G14 explicitly does not apply to set indexes. C F A 💬 17:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Obvious Delete. Personally I would have applied IAR and speedied it as G14. I've raised a query about whether the criteria should extend to empty set index pages at WT:CSD#G14 and empty set indexes — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. When the list of people was reduced to a single name we could have redirected to that article, after which G8 would have applied. I wouldn't object to applying G8 anyway, pretending we had done that under WP:IAR. It's not like it had any content other than the empty list of names to preserve. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete I would have speedily deleted this under A3 if it weren't being discussed here. I would not have deleted it under A14 as it is not a disambiguation page (whether G14 should apply to pages like this is a different question off-topic for this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: It's a disambiguation with nothing to disambiguate? That's a new one. I don't see the need for this page. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy

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

Non-relevant organization, the article is backed only by self-sources and there's information missing sources. In fact, the article was replicated in cawiki around the same time with the very same problems, which could even be viewed as cross-wiki spam. Brunnaiz (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Brunnaiz (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. --Brunnaiz (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete as this research group currently does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. What is required is significant coverage in independent secondary sources and we don't have those here; all the sources cited in the article are essentially primary sources. Not finding coverage via Knowledge (XXG) Library and ProQuest. Searches on Google and Bing mainly return links to the University of Barcelona website; biographies of academics affiliated with the LOGOS Research Group in Analytic Philosophy; or posts promoting their presentations. Perhaps there will be enough secondary coverage about the research group someday, but at this time it does not meet the Knowledge (XXG) criteria for notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. /_Rational 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1940–41 SVB Eerste Klasse

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

No coverage in any sources, except the one and only source which has been published by RSSSF, but that collects statistics of every football match, and only very minimal content inside the article. If anything it should be redirected to SVB Eerste Divisie only if someone can find reliable sources, if not it should be deleted. Azarctic (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South America. Azarctic (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete, lack of verifiable content per . Geschichte (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:A7 This on main space? Nothing there. A7 applies surely. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to SVB Eerste Divisie#Champions, just like I did with the similar article for the 1939 season. Fram (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep part of a copy-paste mass nomination of Kerala trade unions with no apparatent WP:BEFORE; does not address sourcing already provided last time this article was nominated. A vague wave citing WP:NEWSORGINDIA cannot stand for a nomination lacking specific analysis of problematic sourcing. Simple English searching shows multiyear coverage in The Hindu: 2024, 2023, 2015. Searching in Malayali reveals frequent, multiyear coverage in the press (see previous discussion for 14 sources). Not to mention, long-standing Kerala trade union, completely reasonable to assume off-line press sourcing in existence. WP:NEXIST, passes the WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Goldsztajn, who summarized well the issue. There is no novel argument as to why the first AfD had come to any wrong outcome. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. /_Rational 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ritesh S Kumar

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

Non-notable filmmaker who does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG. Sources are interviews, press releases or trivial coverage. Looking at Secrets of Love (web series) based on the current sources, I don't think it meets notability either. S0091 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. S0091 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The film Mridang was highly appreciated in film festivals and was also honored with awards at some places. After that Secrets of Love which is a web series based on the biography of Osho Rajneesh. In this too, the audience gave him a lot of love. Sikdarkiki (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Director largely known for Secrets of Love (web series), so not notable enough per WP:BIO1E, WP:NDIRECTOR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nomination. Subject did not meet the requirements. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Secrets of Love (web series); not opposed to Keep per WP:NDIRECTOR, a guideline that does not require more than 1 notable production (WP:BIO1E does not apply to an artist's work). Other solution: move to draft..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 03:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fails notability. Nothing on his biography and subject's work as director is not notable. RangersRus (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Liz 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Finn Ecrepont

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

Fails GNG, lacks SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep The way the Ayrshire Post went on and on about him, there's enough coverage to meet GNG. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. One Daily Record source is decent - where is the rest? If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Just from googling his name, there are at least five stories online which focus on him (so not mentions in general match reports or counting any of the stories from his 60-yard goal). The Ayrshire Post have also published at least six stories about him specifically, I don't know how many of these are online though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

LabPlot

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find independent coverage to demonstrate WP:NSOFTWARE is met. The previous AFD did a poor job of testing notability, with the rationales to keep revolving around google hits, not sources. I have searched extensively and been unable to find any independent coverage. Note that the article has been substantially trimmed recently and led to the developers writing a blog post. At least one commenter on that article, as well as posters in the accompanying wikipediocracy thread also noted the lack of available sources. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: LabPlot provides a list of citations on their website. While most of these are academic papers that don’t seem describe LabPlot (at least in my sample of them), the GNU and NLNet links may be useful. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, these published education papers discuss LabPlot, albeit in Russian:

I’m tentatively going for keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

> albeit in Russian

According to the language detection of Google Translate, both articles seem to actually be in Ukrainian, not Russian, which seems plausible given that they have both been written in Ukraine. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is independent coverage:

80.109.233.43 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: Hence (see the 2 links I posted above): keep. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep: This seems to be about LabPlot in comparison with another graphing software. Here's another source, but I'm not sure how reliable this website is. Seems to be enough to scrape by. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The software is an important one in the scientific community and is supported by NLNet, which means is not a small software that will disappear in on year. Most people hearing about it will expect to find it on Knowledge (XXG). Lioploum — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment This AFD has been mentioned on the LabPlot website here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Wow! Perhaps someone should have introduced them to talk pages. They seem to have gone in and edited, then edit-warred, then written a screed on their own site that is many screens long. All they had to do was offer some reliable sources and the community would do the rest. Sheesh! Lamona (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This fiasco looks like a pretty good reminder of why the COI guideline exists – although made in good faith, the result looked very promotional and doesn't reflect independent sources; it's a lot of extra for an encyclopedic article that would better be contained to LabPlot's website. TappyTurtle 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I've found this conference proceedings paper that also compares LabPlot to different graphing software: Whilst it appears the original site hosting the pdf is no longer live, the PDF can be accessed from archive.org here: - page 1117 discusses LabPlot. Adding this along with some of the other sources listed above could perhaps be enough to improve it for now, and it seems that it's no less notable than other similar software with similar articles e.g. QtiPlot, SigmaPlot, SciDAVis - perhaps you could argue that these should also be deleted, but otherwise I think I would lean towards keep. WikiJN10 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Great find! Thanks for the paper. (Note that arguing that similar articles exist in a deletion discussion can only imply that the other articles should be deleted as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Kugelmugel

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

No clear indication of notability, does not pass WP:GNG. All search for references show cursory mentions in "List of Micronations" or "List of places to go in Vienna" Soni (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Soni (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Kugelmugel was mentioned in 'Atlas Obscura' book. In german wiki there is a section 'Reactivation' and reference to viennese 'Kronen Zeitung' of 30th May 2004, that it has 'opened its borders with Austria'. Might be more notable than most of micronations. Kolijars (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

oh, not 2004 but 2024 it is :) -> Kronen Zeitung, Wien-Ausgabe vom 30. Mai 2024, Seite 29. Kolijars (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, best I can tell it's still just a passing mention in a larger book. GNG requires some significant coverage of the topic in different sources, and I have not found it yet Soni (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If kept the article should be reworked to be about the unusual house rather than a micronation. The dewiki article begins with "Kugelmugel is a spherical house with a diameter of 8 metres..." Drop the micronation infobox. Reywas92 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any assessment of coverage by Atlas Obscura and elsewhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - while I hadn't known about it before and found it through the deletion sort now. There is definitely a lot of WP:SIGCOV throughout the past 40+ years of its existence, so it most certainly passes WP:GNG, which is also likely why the article has 22 worldwide wiki translations. Some recent coverage of the re-opening of the borders of the micronation in June of this year. It was also covered as a chapter in this recent book about the history of the Prater area it was built in and there are various scholarly papers on the development of micronations citing it as well. Prior to the AfD nomination, the english article definitely could have done with some additional citations to be added from the German language de:Kugelmugel article, but as it stands, the AfD here concerns itself with notability, which is clearly given, so the article should be kept and improved through WP:copyediting instead further.

I have now adopted the article and addressed the issues that were pointed out here, expanding the article with sources spanning many years and have done some copyediting and adding of many more inline citations from various reliable news sources to the article. I've also dug through the Austrian national archives and dug up an old newspaper story from 1975 on it and added it to the history and expanded and corrected the section. The article is now tripled in size with a new further reading section I added on many more books detailing the history of it (not travel magazines) in addition to the inline citations I used to expand the actual article. Raladic (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY - excellent work done to improve the article by @Raladic including identifying multiple sources with sigcov. Furthermore, in my view, there is enough coverage in two sources alone (Die Presse and Atlas Obscura) to create a decent start class article. ResonantDis_tortion 15:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 00:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Noble Compañia de Ballesteros Hijosdalgo de San Felipe y Santiago

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only reference given in the article is non-independent, as it was written by someone who is described as the "commander" of the confraternity. There are also a few external links (including in the text), none of which establish notability of the subject either. toweli (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. With no RS, it’s unverifiable and doesn’t pass the sniff test. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Greens vs. Blacks, what is "the sniff test"? Is that based in some policy or guideline? Liz 07:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, you already know the answer to that, so why are you asking? There’s no policy that says every thought included in a deletion discussion has to be based in policy. But I’m guessing you knew that as well. I’ve included that I agree with the nominator, and there aren’t RS, meaning this isn’t verifiable. That’s all based in policy, so I’m curious as to your reason for focusing a (god forbid) moment of personal thought when there’s already sound reasoning adhering to the policy guidelines. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I was being sincere. Liz 05:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete a search in Google news and books yields very little. Does not meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 02:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Deepak Char

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This article have content i think this article should kept or might considered as stub article, look at the sources.] ] Travis Headache (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs) hi, you didn't responded. Travis Headache (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Travis Headache, this is a deletion discussion, where the pros and cons of a page are debated. You didn't address me in any manner, so there was nothing for me to respond to. I don't feel like the topic of the article is notable, that's why I nominated it for deletion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Management, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Another one of those pages used for promotion and reads clearly like a resume. The sources are poor, primary (written by subject himself), unreliable and with passing mention. The subject's achievements are not substantial and noteworthy to warrant a page on wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. This absolutely reads like self promotion and there aren't satisfactory independent sources covering Char. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Al Ghardaqa

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

Total WP:SYNTH/WP:OR - unverifiable (book ISBNs all fail lookup, as do the cited DOIs). Sent to draft, returned by author unchanged other than to remove many of the suspect ISBNs. BTW the book titles themselves fail book search - give the first cited source, "Genealogies of Eastern Arabia: Tracing the Lineages" a try... WP:NOTGENEALOGY very much applies but even if it didn't, this content is dubious and misleading (but also irrelevant) at best. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD , ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Knowledge (XXG) isn’t here to promote claims like this. There’s nothing here encyclopedic-worthy. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Saghir Akhtar

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe he does not meet the notability policy for academics.-- فيصل (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. فيصل (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Qatar, England, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Query to nominator. Can you please explain in more detail why you think a publication record with 25 triple-digit citation counts might be inadequate for WP:PROF#C1, and why you think being sole editor in chief of a bluelinked journal might be inadequate for WP:PROF#C8? Because those both look likely to be passes to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Thank you for the clarification. Yes, after reviewing these sources, I agree that he meets Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics).-- فيصل (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Maybe the nominator could agree to withdraw this? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Yes I agree.--فيصل (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Hendal

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

I don't see that he meets the notability policy; the sources are scarce. فيصل (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing concrete to establish notablility, fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mongolia women's national under-15 football team

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

This seems like a team of children that has no chance of being notable and meeting GNG. Precedent for deleting similar teams, also for boys, mind you, exist at e.g. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/South Korea national under-14 football team and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Malaysia national under-16 futsal team. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note. This page was created through a cut-and-paste move from Mongolia girls' national under-15 football team and most of its history is currently there.—Alalch E. 09:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Football, and Mongolia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete obviously non-notable ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete for child protection reasons. Speedy delete, even. This constitutes a violation of personal data privacy. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
We have the entire: Category:National under-15 association football teams. There are some funny examples, with the Slovakia national under-15 football team somehow being composed of players that are 27 or 28 years old. —Alalch E. 14:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Merely (significantly) out of date! Giant Snowman 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone has recently nominated Slovakia under-15 football team for deletion here, and of course, the squad list is out of date.⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 23:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Azarctic (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nomination. I couldn't find anything tangible on the web. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per anyone else. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 23:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable topic due to lack of significant coverage.—Alalch E. 00:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario

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

After a quick Google search, believe this list does not meet WP:NLIST criterion of "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", therefore nominating for deletion. Ueutyi (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Does not collect buildings that are notable in themselves, the city is not known for having tall buildings, and there is a lot of precedence for deleting this 2000s-early-2010s-type of Knowledge (XXG) content. Geschichte (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete All the buildings listed are generic suburban condos, none are historically notable. Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Very short article with no notably significant buildings listed.User:R.schneider101 02:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. We tend to only keep such lists if most are the entries are notable. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Seems like an interesting bit of history but there is a consensus here to Delete. If someone wants to work on this in Draft space, let me know. Liz 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Newman Post Card Co.

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

Fails WP:NORG. Part of a walled garden from a now-banned editor who churned out poor-quality articles en masse. The page history shows four of us who essentially agree the article shouldn’t exist, and the PROD was declined on procedural grounds, with no merit-based opposition. WP:BEFORE search came up empty. Courtesy pings @Graywalls, Netherzone, Somebodyidkfkdt, and GB fan: Left guide (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete I endorsed the PROD, but because of technicality or something, it must now end up here. So, putting in my input. The company does not pass NORG and the redirect target initially chosen by an editor was not a good target. Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: This one's my fault, I thought the target seemed reasonable and I didn't know redirecting would interfere with PROD. Does seem to fail NORG.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable postcard company, fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS and WP:GNG. There does not seem to be an appropriate redirect for this. Source assessment table below. Basically, it's 3 non-independent newsletters and an advertisement in a newspaper. Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Branding Iron newsletter	It's a quarterly newsletter for members of a privately owned horse corral organization in Reseda, Calif.	hyper local private newsletter	two sentences	✘ No
Advertisement	An advertisement for postcards or samples thereof	commercial ad placed in a newspaper	not independent; paid for ad	✘ No
Postcard Club newsletter	trade newsletter for local post card club	? Post card club newsletter, probably for collectors of postcards	~ Article is about another company but has an illustrated section for this company	✘ No
Postcard Club newsletter	trade newsletter for local postcard club	? Post card club newsletter	mention that Mr. Newman was a VP of another company; one sentence about the Newman company	✘ 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}}.

●Comment - I Found These Sources:

https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2006115839.html

https://viaf.org/viaf/156310443/

https://lux.collections.yale.edu/view/group/6be787e1-276e-4beb-aa6b-39ef9612f6d4

https://jenikirbyhistory.getarchive.net/topics/postcards+published+by+newman+post+card+company

https://www.cardcow.com/search3.php?s=&pubid=Newman+Post+Card+Co.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Postcards_published_by_Newman_Post_Card_Co.

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/postcards/1672/

https://emuseum.tempe.gov/people/1697/newman-card-company/objects

https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/search?f%5Bcreator_sim%5D%5B%5D=Newman+Post+Card+Co.&id=bb1230963d 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@PaulGamerBoy360, Three database listings, a blog, a postcard selling site, a commons link to the article creator's personal postcard collection and a few data base catalog listings that some libraries have some postcards issued by this company are not strong sources, and definitely not SIGCOV that would meet the notability criteria for WP:NCORP nor SIRS. Netherzone (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The Fact that this Whole Collection of postcards is in libraries is proof the subject of the article is notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. There has to be coverage ABOUT the subject. Libraries have an insane amount of materials, and just being in the catalogue does NOT mean it's notable. Please review WP:GNG before commenting like this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)

@PaulGamerBoy360:, please take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:GNG. Blogs have absolutely no bearing on notability. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete No significant coverage on the subject, fails GNG and NCORP. Reywas92 17:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment @PaulGamerBoy360:: This is an interesting piece of Western American history. It's unfortunate, there are no better sources readily available. There was a time when postcards were having a heyday this was a big one in LA. It lives on in library collections and reproductions in books. Somehow Henderson found information to write this version of the article, I believe sources probably exists out there somewhere, we just need to find them. (I am responding to Paul. I am not voting Keep, nor is this an argument to keep it says "Comment". I am aware that sources are required for AfD, not just the supposition of sources. Have a good day.) -- GreenC 05:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment I found an in-depth source about the company, it appears to be the source Henderson mainly used when he wrote the article: Islapedia. Maybe it got deleted by someone or Henderson never cited it not sure. This source has been cited 25 other times on Knowledge (XXG). It's a wiki, not public. The author is Marla Daily:

ISLAPEDIA was begun in 1973 by cultural anthropologist, Marla Daily, president of the Santa Cruz Island Foundation(1987-current). The Santa Cruz Island Foundation is the sole institution devoted to the cultural history, art, film and science of all California Islands. ISLAPEDIA is a continuing research work in progress—now in its 5th decade.

A cultural anthropologist has strong claims to reliability. Much of the article in this version could be restored with Islapedia as the source. -- GreenC 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS could be invoked about factual accuracy challenges, but I think they're pretty much useless on notability claims Graywalls (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable" .. and reliability is the requirement for notability. Nevertheless, a self-published expert is not a strong source on its own, and the only in-depth one in the article, the overall picture is not enough (yet?). -- GreenC 16:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

All types of spinach are vegetables. Not all vegetables are spinach. Unreliable sources are not acceptable for notability. Not all acceptable reliable sources are acceptable for notability. Graywalls (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz 04:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Pelister (1340)

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

Battle is entirely unmentioned in the sources cited. No results for "Battle of Pelister" in google scholar. Golikom (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Albania, and Serbia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral / weak delete - The source does mention the battle, it's on the first line of page 291. However, other than that, I could not find anything that mentions the battle online in English, Serbian, or Albanian. Ueutyi (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The Battle is included in the page List of Wars Involving Albania so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanian atdhetar (talk • contribs)
- That's List of wars involving Albania, and that it's on that list doesn't mean anything. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Irrelevant "battle". — Sadko (words are wind) 13:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Боки ☎ ✎ 23:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep (Personal attack removed). User:Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Based.shqiptar.frompirok, comments like that have no place on Knowledge (XXG). Base your arguments on policy and sources, not on who is voting for or against keeping this article. Liz 00:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Albanian–Yugoslav rivalry

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

Albania/Albanians and Yugoslavia/Yugoslavs/Serbia/Serbians have engaged in various political and military incidents over the course of the 20th century, for different reasons and circumstances, but there is no such thing as a "Albanian-Yugoslav" rivalry in encyclopedic terms. This isn't football. Entire article is cherrypicked original research and improper synthesis of various events. Griboski (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Yugoslavia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This page was created to explain the rivalry between Albania and Yugoslavia trough the 20 century. It’s just a page to explain the history between why the two countries hate each other and Why did they engage in different battles and how did it end at the end, it’s a connection between all the different conflict they had in one page, so it’s easier for someone to find them. Randomuser2412 (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Giving an overview of broad topics is good, but not every topic is suitable for Knowledge (XXG). We need multiple reliable sources to have discussed this rivalry in-depth – the rivalry itself, not just the individual events that make it up. The best way to argue against this article's deletion is to show us the two or three sources that you think best demonstrate that. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and what constitutes a proper article. Particularly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is not the forum for personal theses. The different events you've collaged are not treated in the single linear manner you've presented them. --Griboski (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Potential WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to Albania–Yugoslavia relations. Curbon7 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
An ATD should not be considered in this case, per below. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ to Albania–Yugoslavia relations. The article is a POV fork and an oversimplification of the relations between those two countries. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Switching to delete. Better to not preserve it due to the risk of sockpuppetry and issues mentioned by other editors. 16:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC) StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete as a freshly (!) created POVFORK. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC
delete obvious creation by and collection of usedrs in the NormalguyfromUK sockfarm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1B69:CD8:2B8A:A6C:58A1:9CD7 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete; on top of everything noted by fellow editors above, glancing over the article for the first time and finding the infobox field that pits Chetniks and Yugoslav Partisans together against Balli Kombëtar and LANÇ during World War II is just ridiculous. Whatever this article was trying to achieve is already covered in scope by the article Albania–Yugoslavia relations. Even the title has issues, because 'rivalry' is ambiguous, so I am also leaning against making it a redirect. –Vipz (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely! In sports "rivalry" is a known (though not always justified) commodity. In international relations still less than that. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete original research; fundamentally fails policy. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's just SYNTH and OR. Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Joël André Ornstein

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago, with the crux of the rationale being that the sourcing is dubious except for a 1-page article in his college's alumni magazine. 11 years later, that is still the case. Many sources are cited, but if you look at them, they are not actually independent sources about him. Several of them do not even mention him, and seem to be cited as background on his family and industry. The Yahoo one that does look like it might be a business article about him is actually just a press release. The alumni mag article is still the only possibly independent article actually about him, and if you look at it, it's a pretty thin puff piece. You could be generous and assume this is independent, significant coverage... but still, it's the only source that could be said of.

This article has all the hallmarks of paid editing. Created all at once by an account that never edited Knowledge (XXG) again, and in 10 years it's only received bot/housekeeping edits, and not a single incoming article link or content edit. But that's what happens when there's no real sources... there's just nothing to legitimately add to Knowledge (XXG). I don't see any sources from various news searches. If a businessperson is never written about in the business press, are they really notable? I don't think so. Here2rewrite (talk)

Delete: Rationale seems reasonable, also could not find sources. Mostly seems to be a person with a good CEO career and a wealthy family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoogles (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, France, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Lo'ay Omran

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 03:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pak Chol-min (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to the 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads#North_Korea - Lâm (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Lâm as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per nom and Lâm Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads#North_Korea: No WP:SIGCOV is present here for this BLP. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azarctic (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Foreign relations of Sri Lanka. Liz 01:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

High Commission of Sri Lanka, Ottawa

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

Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists with 1 primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The article is a stub, but notability is also not based on what sources are currently there. Here's *some* coverage (though I'm also not sure whether it needs an article):

https://www.news.lk/news/political-current-affairs/item/36619-high-commission-of-sri-lanka-in-uk-participates-in-bedford-river-festival-2024

Cursory google/duckduckgo/books search finds no sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

REDIRECT/MERGE to Foreign relations of Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Foreign relations of Sri Lanka for lack of writeup. gidonb (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Gemma Hayes. This action can be reverted after this album is released if it turns out to meet our album notability standards. Liz 01:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Blind Faith (Gemma Hayes album)

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

Only one news article present on the article, so fails WP:NALBUMS, and a Google search result reveals nothing else aside from maybe one short blog news piece on a site called GoldenPlec. I am nominating this for redirection to Gemma Hayes' main article as I redirected it several weeks ago but an editor restored it. Ss112 00:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Ireland. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge, seems like given its size it would fit well in the Gemma Hayes article. Plus the available context would be better. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Draftify or delete. Far WP:TOOSOON. Subject album hasn't even been released yet. Not to mind being the subject of significant coverage. This article appears to have been created (on 16 Jul 2024) a week before the album's launch was even publicly announced/covered (on 22 Jul 2024?). That we are reliant on listings in eCommerce websites (Amazon, goldendiscs.ie, etc) to support even the basic facts is kinda telling. If/when the subject album has actually been released (and reviewed or charted - to the extent that WP:NALBUM can be established) then the article can be recreated. Or the draft moved. Perhaps to be a redirect. As proposed above. Guliolopez (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Information, especially in a BLP, has to be verifiable. So, I have to close this as Delete. If sources can be found, I'd be happy to restore this to Draft space to be improved or you can make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz 01:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Medwyn Goodall

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

This appears to be a vanity page for a musician. While his body of work is extensive, I cannot find any substantial online coverage of him to fulfill WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The second reference states that he has topped the UK music charts twice, but this appears to be a fanzine of questionable reliability and I can't find any mention of him at the official chart website. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've searched the official charts database, and I agree with the nominator, I am unable to find evidence of charting (though potentially it could be so far back in time to not be available online), including under his alternate name. However - there is a WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic staff bio available, which is both non-trivial coverage and confirms gold-certification. Potentially with more verification and coverage this may be a keep. ResonantDis_tortion 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Found this Billboard mention that one of his records sold 50,000 copies here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

These are the notability guidelines Knowledge (XXG) follows for keeping articles on musicians: WP:MUSICBIO. We need reliable sources (WP:RS) to show the article subject meets the criteria. At present it's unlikely there are enough sources, so if you can provide such references that would significantly help. (Note I have been unable to verify the Gold certifications via the British Phonographic Industry website, so help on that would also be useful). ResonantDis_tortion 07:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaning towards Delete per nom. Not much of a coverage Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. BLP tagged for five years as unsourced. The subject's opinion might influence me if they presented a single source which backed their assertion. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: passes WP:MUSICBIO by having gold records (according to him, but I assume he's not lying and that sources exist). There is a self-published (but by a company rather than a fan) bio here. I am concerned about the lack of good identifiable sources but if he passes the policy, then it should be kept, right? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The above is mere opinion. Lacking any RS directly detailing, ]this BLP article passes no criteria for inclusion (ANYBIO, GNG, MUSICBIO). The subject may have 100 gold records, but since we have 0 sources supporting such an assertion, Knowledge (XXG) can't host an article just because the subject requests the article not be deleted. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This AllMusic bio confirms several gold certifications here and the Billboard reference confirms one here but I can't find anything else, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:ALLMUSIC on its reliability as a source: Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. In this case it certainly reads as promotional. We need to know which body certified the records as gold/platinum. Orange sticker (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with this - the Allmusic bio appears to be all we have, and it is not enough on its own. After 3 relists nothing further has been identified so I recommend deletion as not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. I would be happy to change my !vote if more coverage is found, or indeed if the certifications can be verified to the awarding bodies. ResonantDis_tortion 11:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)