Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 22

< 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 21	August 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Allan Ivo Steel

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

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

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

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

counts as "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined toward keep here, although the very worst case situation would be a redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players with a note added to include the reference detail. There's a Wisden obituary with some detail and I would be surprised if there weren't other obituaries - Eton, The Times etc.... Given his family and status this seems very, very likely - I'd suggest that with any war death that a significant BEFORE should really take place as there's often a scad load of detail out there and as a person he would appear to me to be clearly notable in terms of the sorts of things we'd look for. The book that is referred to above is usually a detailed source as well, and Sandford also appears to mention him in his The Final Over: The Cricketers of Summer 1914 - there's story about him uncovering a diamond worth £1 million in Kashmir. No idea where that came from, but there's clearly coverage out there about the chap and he seems notable to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need to hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Three short paragraphs in various sources, which I would say delete; but according to @AA, detailed coverage in multiple books as well as a Times article. This sourcing seems to pass WP:GNG, even if his individual case is not necessarily different from others. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He's on my list to expand. I have an interest in WWI cricketers. Have to juggle that with my Hampshire cricket expansion project! AA (talk) 18:09, 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 merge‎ to Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. I don't see enough support here to Keep this article so this is an ATD. If all of the referenced content has already been merged to the target article, then this page will just beome a redirect. Liz 22:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

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

No indication of WP:ORG notability. All sources I can find are primary or written by non-independent publications. Notability is not inherited from other organizations it is affiliated with. C F A 💬 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. C F A 💬 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. There appears to be no substantial reliable sources to warrant the meeting of notability for a separate article for CWI (2019). The matters related to the implosion/split can be adequately documented on the article for CWI (1974) which does at present appear to meet notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge - Deletion of this page is in effect a request to, in some form (even minimally as a sentence or two, in proportion to notability of any sources), merge it with Committee for a Workers' International (1974). A closely related, but not exactly the same, discussion was held at . That discussion was immediately after the split and was somewhat of a compromise, and left the door open for this discussion here. I think merging today is probably right. (note: I have disclosed a COI). Golightlys (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

See also previous discussion on the same topic, again from immediately after the split.

Golightlys (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't anything to merge. The article content is already covered under Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. It looks like this article just copied that section. C F A 💬 16:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@CFA That's my work. I've tried to create a consistent section on the split using what independent and reliable-seeming sources are available and put that on all three relevant page (CWI, CWI 2019, and ISA). Previously there appeared to be at least some COI editing where the narrative was different depending on the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This is a complex issue which needs careful consideration. It cannot be taken in isolation.

Thanks to CFA for raising the issues here.

Firstly, let's look at some ground rules first, in more detail.

The point that notability is not inherited from other organizations it is affiliated with is certainly applicable.

Primary sources:-

However, are we clear that *if* an organisation is notable, then primary sources are not only allowed but quite important?

What a political party says its policies are is a critical part of reporting in wikipedia about that organisation, whilst if these are contradicted by media reports or other sources, then that would have to be added to maintain objectivity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

Quote: ""Primary" does not mean "bad" -- "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

So there is some application of this to the use of Marxist.net, but that still leaves the objection of lack of notability, which I'll return to in my third point.

But I just want to add that almost the entirety of the Socialist Party (England and Wales) has been removed (60k bytes or more) on the basis of it being based on primary sources stating "Almost entirely self-published sources" and I think this is an oversight, considering this type of edit, given that the SP is notable.

We can discuss this on the relevant pages as soon as time permits, e.g. the Socialist Party (England and Wales) talk page, etc, but I do think wholesale deletions of this fashion should not be undertaken without some reference on the talk page first. It would be best if the sections deleted were restored first, and then a discussion on improving them could take place. I don't want to get into an edit war, and am happy to discuss further.

Secondly, the organsation, Committee for a Workers' International (2019) itself and how we got here:

It is clear that the Committee for a Workers' International (1974) got into a faction fight, and this spread into the Knowledge (XXG) page, with an edit war.

I haven't read through the whole thing, but it appears a consensus was reached, and a second Knowledge (XXG) page was created: the Committee for a Workers' International (2019).

But it seems to me that after all the smoke cleared from the wholesale rift in the CWI, it remains smaller but in all essentials the same organisation through from 1974 to today, so that ultimately it was perhaps premature to go through all that renaming and forming the 2019 wiki page etc.

Hence, War of Dreams argues for a merger. Presumably, to rename the 1974 site "Committee for a Workers' International".

I would have argued the same, but in practice, will the editors of the 1974 page agree to this? I think it is unlikely.

So therefore, any new material posted to the site which pertains to the CWI post-2019 (such as media reports, etc) could be the source of another edit war.

And I'm not at all sure that it is good Knowledge (XXG) practice to attempt to force the editors of each page to accept an overturning of their compromise, given that I am sure it is still fresh in their minds.

So that's why I think we keep it for now.

In summary:

1. Respect the consensus reached by the editors of both pages.

2. Recognise that the Committee for a Workers' International is notable, even if going through a decidedly rough patch over the last few years.

3. See if the CWI is mentioned in relation to any of the sections, such as the Nigeria section, which was facing arrests again I just saw.

4. Move to a merge of the two, 1974 and 2019, as soon as is thought feasible.Andysoh (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

None of this demonstrates how this organization is notable? You basically said "the article should not deleted because primary sources aren't bad and the organization is notable". Yes, primary sources are allowed, but they are completely useless for establishing notability, the main issue being discussed at AfD. There isn't anything to merge either. The article is already covered under Committee for a Workers' International (1974)#Split. Since Committee for a Workers' International (2019) is not notable, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) doesn't need disambiguation and can be renamed to Committee for a Workers' International if desired. I wouldn't have brought this to AfD if I didn't think it should be deleted. C F A 💬 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Following CFA's proposal above. There should be one article titled Committee for a Workers' International and a paragraph or two mentioning that a few organisations that split off continue to claim the name. Those organisations themselves are not notable. Yue🌙 06:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

So to be clear then, this is overturning the Feb 2020 decision . Which I'm not necessarily against, but there were reasons for it. Has anything changed since then? Golightlys (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Golightlys I tried to make sense of that discussion and it looks like it was moving CWI to CWI (1974) unless I'm mistaken, so isn't impacted by this merge. As long as it's clear there was a split in 2019 and there's a non- notable organisation still called CWI and a questionably notable organisation called ISA (I'm going to take another look at that group's article and see if it really meets notability) then it's not really overruling that decision.

In terms of what's changed, not much but I think that's the question this discussion resolves because it seems that CWI (2019) was mostly created to try and resolve a dispute rather than meet policy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, but I'll defend that it worked! :P With a larger number of more experienced neutral(ish) editors watching the page, and tempers having cooled since 2020, hopefully that keeps the drama in check and we can afford to be more encyclopedic this time round. Golightlys (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously coherent. Clearly @Golightlys is an ISA plant Comrades! Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That discussion was not about notability. It doesn't even mention it once. Editors are free to split pages however they like, but that does not change the fact that this organization isn’t notable and its page may be deleted at AfD. C F A 💬 16:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge to section of the 1974 article; I think that the solution that makes the most sense here, (I'm not checking the sources and assuming there is not enough sourcing for notability as claimed above) is to add a "Successor organizations" section and have subsections for both successor organizations, treating them equally. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with CFA. The issue is a lack of notability. Axad12 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per CFA, the split out organization has no evidence of notability, it doesn’t meet the Primary criteria, WP:ORGCRIT. The information in the article has already been provided in the article of Committee for a Workers' International (1974). Nihonjinatny (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge: I agree with the deletion of this stubb page.

"Committee for a workers international (2019)" is a term which only exists on Knowledge (XXG).

In 2019 the CWI split and there were temporarily two organisations which claimed to be the CWI. But one of them renamed themselves in 2020 to "International Socialist Alternative" - an organisation which is now in the process of splintering.

They claim that the CWI leadership acted undemocratically in seizing control of the resources of the CWI despite being a minority on the leading body (the IEC). Others claim that the CWI leadership expelled the majority members https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1262/taaffe-expels-his-majority/ .

But they do implicitly recognise that the CWI still exists - for instance the ISA recently condemned a member of their Austrian section for "rejoining the CWI".

An examination of the history of the CWI website does give some evidence of political and organisational continuity over the past two decades https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://www.socialistworld.net/ . Since the foundation of the CWI in 1974, there have been various splits, in 1991 with the IMT, in 2000 with the SSP, and in 2019 with the ISA and several others. But the organisation and its leadership remain substantially as they were. We can argue about whether the current leadership are right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate. But nobody outside of wikipedia argues that they exist or what they are called. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - merging would effectively be negating the fact that there are (at least) two organisations claiming to be *the* continuation of the CWI and in particular an endorsement of what was in 2019 the CWI Minority's claims. Even of this means we have a CWI 2019 article that is a stub it is better than misleadingly merging the two articles. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence pointing to how Committee for a Workers' International (2019) meets WP:NORG? C F A 💬 13:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if one uses independent sources from other Marxist publications. They may not meet WP:RS though. Another option is to merge both International Socialist Alternative and Committee for a Workers' International (2019) into the article (and perhaps add sections for International Standpoint and other CWI derivatives) but there may be enough sources for ISA to pass WP:NORG on its own. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest avoiding adding more about other derivatives to be honest, because at that point you're going to start getting into derivatives of derivatives.

If it were to be a merge then it's at most just the section about the split, which has already been effectively merged. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, only merge "sections" section per CFA. Everything other than the sections section is already covered by the article, and there is no need to direct a merge and accidentally have some claim that the 2019 CWI is the continuation. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge or Delete due to lack of sources demonstrating independent notability. I cannot tell which way content has flowed between the two articles. If there's any attribution concern, merge - if not, delete. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:08, 29 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 05:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanesa Velásquez

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Regarding GNG, there is nothing near even 1 GNG reference. Regarding SNG assessment, most know for placing in the Top 10 at Miss Colombia 2022 and appointed to represent Columbia at the 2024 Miss Charm competition. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No significant coverage in independent sources. The sources found are mere primary sources and some local sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as a default Keep as those arguing for Deletion are basically saying the article should be deleted because it is an unnecessary article which is not a strong deletion argument. Those advocating Keep argued based on policy (WP:NLIST) and claim sourcing is sufficient which I found more persuasive. I'll just add that I've closed quite a few AFDs on Eureka, mostly as Delete, but this discussion had more supporters than the others did. Liz 23:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Eureka Stockade defenders

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar List of Alamo defenders article and some of them aren't notable enough for their own biographical page either. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The Alamo has a much higher significance, and a good proportion of those defenders do have articles. A list of every defender, absent defender and non-combatant caught in the middle is too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I grant you that the Alamo might have more significance to our American readers. But in Australian terms the Eureka Stockade is definitely folkloric. I've seen Knowledge (XXG) lists where some of the people wouldn't meet the general notability criteria to qualify for a biographical entry of their own. Some of those names on the List of Alamo defenders do have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles. But I just picked about a dozen people from the Alamo list at random and searched Knowledge (XXG) for them and nothing else came up. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I'm hoping to do here is help Knowledge (XXG) take over from Eurekapedia. And Eurekapedia has a list of Eureka Stockade defenders. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just thought that the Eureka Stockade defenders should have a list of their own if the Alamo defenders also have one. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Robbiegibbons I leave it up to others as to whether or not there will be a list. The Alamo is different in that we honestly don't know, and may never know, who all was there. All the time, we find new evidence of someone, and also pull someone we listed in error (Talk:List of Alamo defenders). The entire Texas revolution was about slavery. The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, but the white slave owners who moved to Texas, brought their slaves with them. Good luck, and keep doing the good work you do. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Eureka Rebellion is a bona fide part of Australian folklore. The article on the rebel war flag the Eureka Flag says the design pattern was a rival to the official Australian national flag twenty years ago before the Eureka Flag started to appear on bumper stickers with racial slogans. And that's the other point I would make. The people at Ballarat Heritage Services are always adding to the body of knowledge as well. If we decide to keep these lists then you can rest assured that as detailed as they are. They're not as detailed as they're going to be. I always hoped the Knowledge (XXG) Eureka Rebellion series itself would spur some more research. As good as www.eurekapedia.org is. I want to be given the opportunity to see if wikipedia can do even better. If we can get every article in the series up to good article status then BHS might be willing to donate some or all of their image library to wikimedia. The list of Eureka Stockade defenders is vastly more informative than the one on the Alamo defenders if the truth be known. Some of those obituaries of the Eureka rebels contain some pretty interesting stuff. If the list is going to stand then I do have about ten more sources with additional details that I could cite. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Alamo defenders were all killed, and a number of them were very famous in their own right before the battle; most of the Eureka Stockade ones weren't. It makes a significant difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Not everybody inside the Alamo died. — Maile (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly, compared to the mostly surviving ES defenders. A last stand vs. a not-last stand. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep on grounds offered. Maybe there's some other unfixable problem here (e.g. if "The Eureka Encyclopedia" is argued an unreliable source), but "Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article" is not a valid deletion reason - see WP:NLIST, where lists of individually non-notable yet collectively notable groups are explicitly allowed. Article creator makes a decent case that the defenders are notable collectively so this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinout of the Battle of the Eureka Stockade article, which is already on the long side. SnowFire (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Seems sourced enough; @SnowFire's argument seems reasonable. I question the use of EurekaPedia, which I don't know if it is user-generated? A lot of the defenders are also cited (other than the that) to one particular book, but there are other sources. Certainly has enough coverage to write an article on, anyway. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If the article stands then we can add direct links to the obituaries from https://trove.nla.gov.au. That should be heaps of sources. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"heaps of sources" ... tell me you're Australian, without telling me you're Australian :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per SnowFire. Nothing in WP:NLIST indicates that all subjects of (or a large portion of) the class must be notable for the class to be notable, see for example Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors. There is sigcov RS that discusses the class particularly given the subsequent treason trials. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 05:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Loyalism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, completely unneeded fork of a standalone article that itself (the fork) doesn't fulfill notability. Noorullah (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

*Merge to Eureka Rebellion in a much abbreviated form. Lamona (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Having now read the main article and this article more carefully, I change my !vote to delete. This article 1) does not define "Loyalism" 2) the text says almost nothing about loyalism. I admit that I am not sure what the editor meant to say in this, but I cannot find it. Lamona (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a hyperlink to the wikipedia article on loyalism as in loyalty to the powers that be. it was only ever intended to be a start class article. if we have to eliminate the "ideologies" section from the Eureka Rebellion series box I'm not bothering about it anymore. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Republicanism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Merge to Eureka Rebellion. This article, and others related, including Eureka Rebellion are fully sourced but are written in the tone of essays or book chapters rather than encyclopedia articles. I'm changing my vote because I went over to try to edit the article and could not find in it hardly anything about this "republicanism." It doesn't say what it is, nor how it relates to the rebellion. (What follows here is still true for all of the "rebellion" articles. I will try to edit another one, hopefully with more success.) First, the reliance on quotes is unnecessary and those concepts should be stated in the article with cites, not quoted at length. Second, there are statements like "contains a hint that the movement contained those" "There may have been a declaration of independence drawn up by someone" "no discoveries have been made, nor is there any clear and convincing evidence". These statements might be fine in a history book or an essay arguing points, but Knowledge (XXG) needs to be a statement of facts, not suppositions. I also note that this does not appear to be a fork of the Eureka Rebellion article because that article does not include this information on republicanism. Essentially these separate articles are like chapters in a larger book. For WP a separate article can expand on a topic in another article, but the relation between these articles is not clear. I suspect that a re-write of the entire series on this topic need to be deeply edited as to style and content. Lamona (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Please forgive me, but it was decided the Eureka Rebellion article was getting a bit too long. And I couldn't think of anything better to do with the part about the alleged declaration of independence. Robbiegibbons (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Robbiegibbons You don't need to make that article much longer (and compared to some other articles it really isn't excessively long). The sum total of this information could be a few sentences. And as others have noted, all of these "Rebellion" articles are overly wordy, and could be shortened. I could do some work on one and show you what I mean, but you need to be willing to accept some considerable cutting of your text, especially the lengthy quotes. Lamona (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Please go for it my friend, I always thought I was good at truncating things but I'm not that good. The Eureka rebellion is the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Per policy, I think, if it's notable in Australia it's notable here. Not that I think the article should necessarily be kept, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Fracket

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Fashion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Comment. I appreciate Rublamb's efforts to add sources and expand the article. Below are some initial thoughts on the sources and external links added:

The Cut: Qualifies as WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source.
Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern 1 and 2 and the Bucknellian, either obvious Onion-style satire or self-disclosed as satire.
The Crimson (Harvard), 34 St (Penn), Onward State (Penn State), Vanderbilt Hustler, Phillymag churnalism from Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn), Her Campus (Drexel chapter; this article is primarily based on an Urban Dictionary definition), JERK Magazine (Syracuse), The Tab (Penn State), University Girl SU (Syracuse). Some of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some are unreliably sourced (i.e. to Urban Dictionary), and the more substantive items read as opinion-style articles rather than factual reporting. Under WP:RSSM, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." This is a case by case situation and I don't think there's anything I would consider reliable WP:SIGCOV here.
DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.: one-paragraph or one-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS out of a full book.
A CNET article posted in 2023: all content post-November 2022 considered unreliable per WP:CNET.
Use in a novel - see discussion of use-mention distinction at WP:NEO.
Odyssey Online Brandeis and Odyssey Online Penn State: a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and thus unreliable. (According to its website, "Join Odyssey here to create, post and share your content. No approvals, no barriers. It's just you, your content, and your readers.")
Mears and Mooney, Qualitiative Sociology: A single passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV.

To sum up, I think we have just the article in The Cut as WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward WP:GNG, and we need more. Outside of student media, there's not enough in-depth coverage of this neologism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the sources and potential sources. I have removed Odyssey as a source; good catch. However, disagree with some of your analysis.

You seem to dismiss college newspapers as a reliable source or as having significant coverage. In fact, college newspapers are reliable, and given the universities involved, represent significant circulation. If there was just one article in one campus newspaper, you would have a point. But, as demonstrated by the various publications, the topic has significant coverage in a geographically diverse group of campus publications. Yes, the majority of the articles are features rather than news articles, but that is to be expected with fashion and culture topics. Note that the satirical publications are listed in external links and are not sources for the article.
Tab and Her Campus are publications written by college students but are not affiliated with a specific campus. Thus, these to qualify as non-campus sources.
Mears and Mooney mention the topic three times in their article, covering the origin and social importance of the fracket. The point is not whether this is trivial or significant coverage but that the term is being discussed in a scholarly article about campus life. This recognition of the term fracket by academics shows that it has moved beyond an Urban Dictionary term or neologism. This also demonstrates coverage in non-university publications.
I agree that the mentions in the two books (DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.) and the novel are not significant coverage. Rather, these demonstrate coverage by mainstream publishing houses, ie. non-university publications, showing that the term has moved beyond a campus neologism, which is one of your main reasons for this AfD.
While we can't use the Urban Dictonary as a source for Knowledge (XXG) because it is user-generated content, there is nothing wrong with using a source that discusses the Urban Dictionary's definition. That is, in fact, the very definition of a secondary source.

Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Sourcing is inadequate for an entire mainspace article on this topic. Redirect to coat as a second option, and possibly merge over into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Response: If we go with redirect (which would be more beneficial to users and is also my second choice), another option would be Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as the term is already included there. I guess we need to decide if this fall under fraternity culture or clothing? I think the former, give the term's orgin. Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I was surprised to learn of this term, but am convinced it has generated enough usage and secondary sources to pass the notability test. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep My knee-jerk reaction was to delete, but I checked out the article and there seems to be enough sourcing to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, here I am, thinking "fracket" was a potential swear word. #Wrong
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per @Rublamb's argument that college newspapers are reliable: info is given on the history of the term. Also, this reflects a practice, not only a term. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

One article quotes a student saying "In the unwritten fracket law, if your fracket is stolen, you are in the right to take someone else’s fracket. While you are at it, you might as well upgrade like your robber did." The idea is that there is a "fracket culture". I think that's probably the best argument for justifying the existence of a Knowledge (XXG) article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:RSSM student publications can be reliable sources for news on their school and local community but not for much outside of that as professional sources are typically preferred when available. Based on the discussion, student media appears to be the only in-depth coverage but I don't think that's enough to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
As noted above by @Dclemens1971, one source is article in New York (magazine) (The Cut: The Best Idea Ever to Come From a Frat Party), that ia a professional, secondary source with in-depth coverage. Tab and Her Campus are also non-campus sources with sig coverage. Thus, notability is not relying just on campus sources.

. Rublamb (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Tab and HerCampus are sources affiliated with campus chapters written by college students. They would be covered under RSSM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Rublamb and Mrfoogles. I also think this is the appropriate time to add in a lesson on how college journalism has changed radically over the past few decades. Between the large university presses, more reliable blogs and content users, the sourcing is fine. The slavish adherence to mainstream media (MSM) as the *only* reliable sources is, as of 2024, badly broken. Part of the change has been the deterioration of MSM, which instead of direct advertising and subscriptions, has become chained to clicks on their online platforms. The other major change has been the consolidation of higher education and paid journalism at those universities. In the 1980s, when I published a college newspaper at SUNY New Paltz, every staff member was a volunteer and our audience was the 2,200 students living full-time in the Residence halls. College newspapers today have paid staff, and my Alma mater has 8,300 students. Content creators didn’t exist in 1991, but 200 of them were credentialed at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. These are not your parent’s campus newspapers. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Per Rublamb's expansion and source analysis. I think the fact that this has attracted coverage in multiple, professional, secondary sources is good indication of notability- even if it's not the most significant of coverage. While I agree that it's never ideal to use student newspapers, that has to be balanced against the fact that the term has received coverages multiple, disparate student newspapers, apparently with editorial oversight comparable to some small-town newspapers, and that we're not using them to source an article on a contentious topic and/or a BLP. As an alternative to keep, the coverage should warrant a few sentences merged into the Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as an ATD. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Goyche-Zangezur Republic

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

Article that cannot be attributed to reliable sources and fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. The only source with any credibility that even acknowledges the subjects existence points out many Azeri sources do not even consider the "project" to be real. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes, which this seems to have been a part of. The only English-language coverage I could find are , but likely to be more coverage in Armenian/Azeri-language sources. Curbon7 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Support: No significant coverage, does not meet WP:N guidelines, and significant lack of any WP:RS warrants deletion. Archives908 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
delete: not seeing SIGCOV or really any substantial evidence that this is anything more than a fantasy of some extremists. maybe could get a sentence or two at Azerbaijani irredentism, but i'll leave that up to someone else. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Caleb Dirks

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

A former minor-league pitcher who does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage; the sources are reports of trades, etc. Being a "jackman" in NASCAR is not particularly notable either, although the WSJ did do a piece about his team . Walsh90210 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Motorsport. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete barely source exists of Dirks being a pit crew. However, his MLB career is marked by being released after being traded and shifting from minor league team to minor league team, unremarkable at best per WP:ROUTINE. WP:GNG is very thin at best. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ony self-published sources and stats page that mirror each other are found when searcing the internet. No significant coverage to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete for reasons previously stated - the biography subject is not notable and inadequately sourced. 1Matt20 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A non-notable minor league baseball player. Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Marr Williams

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and not found sources to add. The article has no footnotes, and the only external links are IMDb and an interview. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Info is even thin on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. I didn't find anything about him in a basic search (and going in 7 pages deep). Lamona (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. I looked him up, and his roles were so insignificant that most of them didn’t even have last names. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ubon Obot

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

Total failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Barely had any career, played 8 games in a semi-pro league with match attendances of a couple hundred. Nothing comes up in a search, in fact the top three hits are this Knowledge (XXG) page, Linked In and Facebook. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone 21:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom; very minimal professional football participation and no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Azarctic (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No independent, reliable sources found to show significant coverage and prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:SPORTCRIT here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Laura Wills

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

An interesting case, but I don't think they meet WP:NPOL as a non-elected civil servant. Can't find enough coverage to meet GNG. There's this and not much else. C F A 💬 20:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, United Kingdom, and Islands. C F A 💬 20:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Most of the article was copyvio and has now been deleted. PamD 07:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I could hardly find any independent sources through a search, and nom seems to have found the only one. This is more relevant when trying to figure out the notability of the office, which comes up empty. GuardianH (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

Delete per above, but I also think we need to look at the situation with her position. She’s the appointed officer of a territory without any permanent residents and a budget equivalent to a medium size college cafeteria. She doesn’t even live there! She has five “direct reports.” I’ve been on boards with larger budgets and more employees. See WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Strong Draftify. Contrary to what others above say, I quickly found several relevant articles in a Google search which includes South Georgia.

https://polarjournal.ch/en/2023/04/13/work-as-a-government-officer-on-south-georgia/

https://gov.gs/personnel/

https://www.instagram.com/southgeorgiaceo/

https://gulfnews.com/friday/art-people/what-its-like-to-rule-a-nation-with-no-citizens-1.2315064

https://x.com/GHFalklands/status/1417851241057689606

Nominating an article by a new user (37 edits) for deletion less than a day after it was created is not a good approach to growing the editor base. Yes, there was copyvio, so we teach, we don't kill the user. Give the editor encouragement, and let them try and improve (with assistance) and submit via AfC. If the nominator will withdraw the AfD then I (or others) can draftify it. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, this is a waste of time. We shouldn't be encouraging draftification of articles when the topic simply isn't notable. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. By draftifying we're implying to the creator that this could be an article with a bit more work. That's why I stopped unilaterally draftifying for notability. I'm telling you as an AfC reviewer that this has no chance of being accepted. Source 1 only offers a trivial mention of Willis. Source 2 is a government website. Source 3 is her Instagram. Source 5 is a Tweet by the island government. Source 4 is the only decent source you found. Combine it with my local, routine source, and we're hardly at 2. Nowhere near enough for an otherwise non-notable civil servant. C F A 💬 14:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Unelected civil servants, even in senior roles, are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG — but this is referenced solely to content self-published by her own employer, not to reliable source coverage about her, and the sources listed above aren't much better, as Instagram posts and Xitter tweets and glancing namechecks of a person's existence in coverage of other things don't help to establish notability at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find enough proper reliable sourcing to support a GNG-compliant article with, but nothing here is good enough in the current state. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Aviv Elor

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

Typical promotional article about a business founder. Every source cited in this article is affiliated with the subject in one way or another, or is not about the biography subject. Citations either stem from Santa Cruz Works (his company is a member of their accelerator program) or coverage from University of California, Santa Cruz sources, where he went to school. Other sources are actually about his sister, Amit Elor, who is an olympian and do not mention the subject of the article. I've searched in the usual places and haven't turned up anything but more stuff from the UCSC newslatter. This person doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, so the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Typical entrepreneur promotion stuff, ref-bombed with half-relevent, semi-reliable sources. Nswix (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: A legitimate researcher, but not passing notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ulices Briceño

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Mexican footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this piece from El País as well as a couple pieces about his attempts to fundraise money for his son (1, 2, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete due to non-notability. No independent sources found to show significant coverage. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Democratic National Convention#Protests and demonstrations. Liz 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

March on the DNC 2024

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

Originally made this assuming this march would be bigger, but honestly seems like subsection on 2024_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_demonstrations is much better Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Propose a Redirect... apologies for jumping the gun and making this page too early. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 22. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone 19:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to the proposed subsection, per author proposal. Neither the subsection or the protests article are that big, and don't need to be separate, at least at this point (who knows, maybe they'll expand). However, I think there is a decent bit of useful content in the separate page, (the Background and Prior to protest sections) which aren't in the section, which would be worth merging. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to 2024 Democratic National Convention#Protests and demonstrations. Already mentioned throughout the article. Merging would do more damage than good. gidonb (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pokémon manga. Liz 23:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure!

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

I cannot find any sources discussing this series. A search yields only mentions, with only a short paragraph from TheGamer here: https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-comics-to-start-with/ being the only discussion I could find on the title. There's no significant coverage in terms of reviews, analysis, or anything else. As such, I don't believe this series meets Knowledge (XXG)'s general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage. This article could probably be redirected to List of Pokemon manga as an AtD (Even if that list itself isn't the greatest) as it is listed there and page history can be preserved for the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Pokémon manga per nom. Doesn't seem to remotely pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Pokémon manga per Zxcvbnm. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Los Falcon's

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

No claim to notability and while I found many music videos, I couldn't find any independent coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - They are visible in typical streaming and social media sources, and appear to have a talkative fan base. But I can find no independent media coverage under the names "Los Falcon's" or "Los Falcons" (with and without apostrophe). Trying to find info on a band called simply "Falcons" is hopeless, and I also cannot find anything informative about the one listed band member, Armando Sandoval. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I can find mentions of the band (, ), but that's about it. toweli (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Indeed, links to streaming and social media sites appear when searching. Other than that, no significant coverage to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Very Filmy

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - As per WP:Notability (television), there are sources available on Google search which can be added into the article from reliable sources, making it a notable television show.202.165.250.79 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
ATA: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Not just saying. I actually google it and I found below articles other than the ones included in the article.

1, 2, 3, 4. 202.165.250.79 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of the URLs are broken. Please fix them and I’ll assess them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I can’t access the first two URLs; the links are broken. The other two don’t meet GNG. This one is not a RS, and this one is TRIVIALMENTIONS and without a byline, so I wouldn’t consider it for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" cause you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or not cause apparently there is coverage about the show. Anyways, "Note to the closing admin", consider the search results prior to deciding your outcome as I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. Peace out ! 202.165.250.70 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" Sorry, I don’t quite get it. Can you explain a bit more? you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or no I did a Google search and couldn’t find anything to help establish GNG. That’s why I asked you to provide coverage that you believe meets GNG. The onus is on you to provide that coverage since you voted to keep the page, not on me. I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. I didn’t nominate this page for deletion. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Mlaka Maliro

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any uninvolved thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Rolandas Jasevičius

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Lithuania. C 679 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have been well-known in Lithuania, which Lithuanian media did you search in your WP:BEFORE? I found the basics in an Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia, coverage of his European bronze in 2004 (career highlight = not WP:ROUTINE) and WP:SUSTAINED coverage of an assault later in 2004 that halted his career. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per Geschichte. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments/Question Competing at the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability, especially when you're badly beaten in the opening round (54-21). A bronze medal at the European championships doesn't meet any SNG and his semi-final bout was stopped in the second round of the fight (where he lost to someone who lost in the second round of the Olympics). The coverage of his bronze medal was just coverage of the results of the Lithuanian boxers in the event. His short listing in the Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia is more of a database entry than an article. Being a crime victim doesn't make him WP notable, either. Since he fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX, he needs to meet WP:GNG. I don't read Lithuanian, but I can use Google translate. Can someone please point me to the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a difference of opinion on the quality of the sourcing. Do we have any boxing fans that can weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The crime part isn't supposed to make him notable as a victim, but is highly significant and relevant to his career trajectory. WP:SUSTAINED seems unquestionably met in my opinion. Specific details of results, first and second round etc. aren't necessarily relevant for the discussion. WP:NOLY is irrelevant since it states "Significant coverage is likely to exist for...", but by discussing specific coverage found by someone, we are past that. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused. WP:NOLY says significant coverage is likely to exist for Olympic medalists, which he is not. Why are we "well past..discussing" meeting WP:GNG? It's also not clear to me that competing in the Olympics and later getting mugged is what sustained coverage is about. It seems to me like either an SNG or the GNG needs to be met. I'm not saying the GNG can't be met, just that I haven't seen convincing evidence it is. That's why I didn't vote to delete, because I feel there may well be significant coverage. People with potentially promising careers who are killed or severely injured in auto accidents or crimes don't become notable because of their misfortune. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just want to understand the prevailing thinking. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Ian Parovel#Filmography. This has already been relisted twice without generating real discussion except from user suggesting redirect instead. Even the individual trying to improve the article acknowledges the lack of better sources so far. No policy-based argument to keep has arisen. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The Podcats

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I cleaned up the page roughly. Added a source that mentions 4 awards (but I could not verify them with other sources) and good audience at the start of the series. The series was also distributed in Portugal and Poland. That could be enough but more (and better) sources would be nice.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Could also be added to and redirected to List of French animated television series (I am opposed to deletion given what I mentioned above).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. More discussion would have been helpful, but no policy-based opposition to its removal has emerged. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Cardholder Information Security Program

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to redirect, seems to be mentioned on target page Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard as per Dclemens1971. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Will & Grace characters

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

List of non-notable characters that is already covered at the main article for Will & Grace. There is a reckless amount of unsourced material and nothing to justify its own article. Even the main character articles like Will Truman or Grace Adler have severe problems with sourcing but we have to start somewhere. Jontesta (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep No BEFORE articulated. Complaint suggests most (all?) problems are solvable by editing/trimming, and has an obvious merge target. Jumping to AfD is unwarranted. And, since the topic of "Characters of X" is "X", notability for a list of characters article isn't even in question. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with most of the points you've raised, but I'd contest that last point. Notability isn't inherited. Just because Will & Grace is notable doesn't mean a list article about the characters appearing in the show should be kept on the same principle. But, as I said, I agree with the majority of your points. I don't have a strong opinion on this yet. An AfD may not be the optimal venue for a merge discussion, but it gets the job done, and I suspect any trimming is going to be more of a hatchet job. DonIago (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
"Inherited" isn't a sensible way to articulate the relationship between X and Characters of X. "Characters of" X is an element or subset of X. The notability of my left hand is not inherited from me like the notability of my son might be; one is a subset, one is an offspring. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as a reasonable WP:SIZESPLIT from the main article – details about recurring characters are generally good as encyclopedic content, though I agree that the current list is too long (removing the list of one-time guest stars would probably be a good place to start trimming) and should have better sources (in general, character lists across Knowledge (XXG) tend to be poorly sourced, but that's distinct from encyclopedic relevance). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: per WP:SIZESPLIT. "List of characters" pages for notable TV shows are very common on Knowledge (XXG). I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument against deletion, but sometimes, well, other stuff does actually exist: in other words, it's common practice, like a "List of episodes" page or a "List of awards and honors" page, when the parent page is too long to support it. Toughpigs (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep - albeit somewhat on the fence. I think given the program's historical importance in terms of queer representation on American television, which was naturally expressed through its choice of characters and sometimes casting, Will & Grace has as much right (maybe more) to have a list of characters than many other shows which also do; as the above user says, it is basically common practice. Additionally a list like this is not appropriate for the main article, so if it is deemed that there are enough recurring characters to warrant this treatment, a separate list makes sense. There are perhaps concerns about how much of the existing content can be sourced anywhere other than just by citing the episodes in which events happen, in my opinion. However recommendations for starting improvements would be: a) removing most (all?) one-time-only characters, since if those have any notability it will go on the "list of episodes" or individual episode pages; b) providing number of episodes next to each listed character, which helps readers understand relative importance of a character to the program; c) sorting them by season appearance or some kind so that the page serves as a useful encyclopedic reference to the television series rather than to the world of the series, which is the fan's prerogative; and d) perhaps porting over the more complex table of supporting characters from the main article - it serves little purpose there. The Cardigan Kid (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep per the comments above and per WP:SIZESPLIT. Will and Grace was/is very popular and had 11 seasons with a lot of guest stars and this cannot all fit in the same page. I have looked online and have seen many sources showing SIGCOV of the characters and show and this is before evening looking through archive and newspapers. I agree that the current page needs work but it is very possible to improve by sourcing the cast and adding real world information and reception to improve the page. I would begin improving it now but my time is currently limited as I am in the middle of exams; however, I have added some (not all) sources that can be used for improvement on the talk page.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I share DaniloDaysOfOurLives’s sentiment. This was a popular, longstanding, and groundbreaking prime time television series on a major network, when that mattered. Sources can be found easily, especially about the guest stars who played themselves (or semi fictional avatars), like Cher and Elton John. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, per The Cardigan Kid. Editors saying that size splits trump notability need to review WP:AVOIDSPLIT. But this was a notable series with sufficient coverage for its ensemble cast. I might agree with cleaning up the one-time minor appearances, but that can be done through editing, not AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Language Icon

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

All but two of the sources appear to be primary. Of the two that are arguably secondary, 6 and 9, I wouldn't consider either terribly reliable. 6 is presented as an interview with the icon's designer, but it doesn't seem to actually be an interview (this website uses the exact same questions for every designer it covers, so I would argue it's less of an interview and more of an article written by the "interviewee"). And 9 is a GitHub issue (which falls under WP:USERGENERATED). I did a cursory search and was unable to find any real secondary coverage of "The Language Icon", or even about language icons in general. Thus, I don't think it's notable enough for an article. Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note that most editors agree that no WP:INTERVIEW can count towards notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Doing a source search, I would note an EIN Presswire article. There does seem to be a lot in the repurposed news category for a lot of the sources I'm turning up. And while WP:Notability (artwork) doesn't exist, WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILM both have provisions for an award. If we were to apply a similar reasoning here, I think the specific icon has won awards. Any source mentioning that in my search though, is of course, primary to the award. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The EIN article is a good find; I didn't see that one. Worth noting, though, that it seems to be written by A' Design Award and Competition SRL, the same group that operates languageicon.org. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Language Icon § License seems to be original research. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Anything encyclopedic here is a brief mention at Icon (computing), but I don't see anything worth merging. Even if this were a more reified term worth 10× the citable RS, it'd be better as part of a larger article. Remsense ‥ 论 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete despite my best efforts at a search, I don't think this meets the GNG. I will concede that given the name of the subject, searching is difficult. I would be interested if anyone is able to find anything. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. There’s lots of self-references, but that’s it. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of James Bond allies

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non notable spinout from List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series. The other list could use some clean-up, but it would make an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, and Lists. Spiderone 17:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: seems to meet WP:NLIST and to be a WP:SPLITLIST. Sources can be added, https://collider.com/james-bond-best-allies-ranked/ https://screenrant.com/james-bond-closest-allies/ https://setthetape.com/2023/01/06/james-bond-top-5-allies/ https://jamesbondstudies.ac.uk/articles/95/files/64625e52e7977.pdf etc or passages in various books, including Funnell, Lisa, and Dodds, Klaus, Geographies, Genders and Geopolitics of James Bond. (Palgrave Macmillan 2016) covering the topic. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NLIST and WP:SPLITLIST criteria. There is some significant coverage of some of the characters (including in academic sources) which could be added to this article, but all can be supported by good reliable secondary sources. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as mentioned in this discussion. Also this list is more encyclopedic than the list of recurring characters which has no prose apart from the intro, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as the sources provided above show notability that meet WP:NLIST. The sources above can be used to give more real world information.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep Clearly notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Piotr Napierała

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is almost entirely based on self-published and primary sources. The article had been deleted before. NicolausPrime (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have failed to add this article to any deletion sorting list. Can anyone please do this for me? NicolausPrime (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Poland. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete and Salt. Negligible impact on citation landscape. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC).
Delete. Our article lists the titles of over a dozen books, and often someone with many books is notable through WP:AUTHOR, but that does not appear to be true for Napierała: I could not find any published reviews. And as noted above his single-digit citation counts are far too low for WP:PROF. The previous AfD agreed that he was not notable as a YouTuber and it was recent enough that little seems likely to have changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete. I concur he has little visibility from independent outlets, but it is worth noting his bio was discussed on pl wiki five times, with the thirst two discussins ending in keep, and the last three, in no consensus: https://pl.wikipedia.org/Dyskusja:Piotr_Napiera%C5%82a --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete but not Salt -- not enough has changed since the 2023 AfD to warrant a keep (a 2024 citation is to his own site). However, the presence of a plausible argument for notability on the Polish wiki suggests that he may become notable in the future. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Object per Knowledge (XXG):BLPPROD. The frequency of AfD interventions (mentioned here by @Piotrus) only prove ideological (and emotional) premises against a polarizing liberal figure amongst Polish Wikipedians. Which of course shows a predominant majority of conservatives who literally rush in just to level out any acknowledgment. It only needs a glance into those discussions to convince yourself of it. And this transfers into enwiki, apparently -- which is actually a subject of Knowledge (XXG):BLPCOI guideline. Hence my objection to your nomination.

Primary sources here specifically are referring to personal information or the man's books (eg. they're justified). Take these out, and you have a set of legitimate academic mentions in papers or reviews.

On the other hand, there are pages on Polish historians (at least on Category:Polish historians) with weaker refs, not enough refs for a page, or no refs at all, for that matter, and should've been long moved to drafts -- and had no AfDs. Namely Jolanta Sikorska-Kulesza, Maciej Szymanowski, Marcin Zaremba, Maria Poprzęcka. Similarly, those from Category:Polish YouTubers, namely Maciej Frączyk, Ela Gawin -- loads of poor quality primary sources. — Kochas 16:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:BLPPROD can apply here, given that it applies to BLPPROD deletions, which are a different thing than the AfD deletion process. WP:BLPCOI doesn't apply either -- I don't have a COI here, I've never interacted with the subject off-wiki, and I don't have a strong view of em one way or another.

As for the articles that you have listed, indeed at least some of them are very poorly sourced (esp. Ela Gawin, which appears to be a glaring WP:BLP violation). I will submit some of them to AfD later too. Thank you. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kochas WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - feel free to nominate those other articles for deletion discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Napierała is a well-known scientist who fights nationalism, xenophobia and Russian propaganda about the West. The request to remove this article is motivated by revenge for telling the truth about the extreme right in Poland. 2A02:A31B:20B3:7780:25AD:D3C7:D1A6:CAF2 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Eric Pascarelli

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

WP:BLP of a film producer and visual effects supervisor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for film industry personnel. The attempted notability claim here is that he's been nominated for awards, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- an award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners or nominees notable for winning it, so the source for an award claim has to be reliably sourced evidence that the award is a notable one, but the statement here is referenced to the subject's IMDB profile rather than any evidence that the awards he was nominated for were notable at all. And nothing else here is referenced any better, either: it's all referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing shown whatsoever.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bearcat this is all fair; how much time would I have to add? I had made a more detailed stub but then I accidentally deleted the whole thing somehow! So in frustration I just threw some basics in on this second draft for example I did not add the citations to the awards yet or a filmography again because I ran out of time. Victoriasuen (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Visual effects supervisor is not terribly notable, one of many names that roll by in the credits. Sourcing is used now in the article is primary or non-RS. I don't find anything talking about this individual in my search... Has never won/been nominated for an award, further limiting potential notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The media section is gone, with media citations, including a Vanity Fair interview. I don't think I deleted that accidentally am looking in history - I can't get to this today (or in the next 24 hours) but will try soon after. Yes has been nominated for awards (I had these details and citations in the first draft that I certainly did delete by accident!) Victoriasuen (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Interviews are not notability-assisting sources, per WP:INTERVIEWS. They can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after WP:GNG has already been covered off by stronger third-party coverage and analysis about him that was written in the third person, but are not in and of themselves support for notability since they represent the subject talking about himself.
It's also not acceptable formatting for a Knowledge (XXG) article to contain a "media" section that just stacks a list of offsite "media" hits — to the extent that media coverage counts as support for notability, it has to be the footnoting, and a pile of links not being used to footnote any of the article's content is not how it's done.
And again, awards only count toward establishing a person's notability if they're referenced to journalism that treats "Eric Pascarelli wins award" as a news story, and not if they're referenced to his own IMDB profile, because an award has to be notable in its own right (i.e. an award that media cover as news) before it can make its winners notable for winning it. A person cannot become notable for winning an award that is not itself notable, so your source for an award has to be WP:GNG-worthy evidence that the award is notable. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of significant professions which neither public facing and in fact invisible but yet significant to support the more public facing professions. As in sports, Wiki editors most certainly fall into this category. I do not agree that we should judge other professions as to who is the most important one that rolls by in credits-- the whole industry is clearly based on the marketability of the talent. Victoriasuen (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable enough at this time. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Re-affirming Bearcat's statement that interviews, primary souces, may be considered only for minor details on an article and ONLY AFTER the subject has passed WP:GNG or WP:SNG. This producer has not met that at this point. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete I found one substantial article, in Indiewire - I don't know if it's considered reliable but it isn't on the Perennials list. I can find short statements in other articles (not directly about him) that would source some of the facts about which films he worked on, but I don't think we've reached GNG so those don't help. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Generational planet

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

No indication of notability. The entire article is just uncritically presenting astrological beliefs. Un assiolo (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete unsourced astrology cruft. Should have been deleted years ago. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The article probably needs to be entirely wiped and stubbed, but the topic *may* be notable. With quick searches I can only find (obviously unreliable) astrology sources, and I can't tell how big it is, but it could have been covered by people studying astrologists. It's kind of an interesting mythology and it would be nice to have an article about it. I think that if at least one non-astrology source can be found, it should be stubbed and kept. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Virtually unsourced astrology cruft (though it could be useful on an astrology Wiki, I admit). TH1980 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect or merge selectively to Planets in astrology. Poor sourcing, but it could be better discussed in context of the other planets. It’s a fringe of a fringe idea, for which we require special care and sourcing. Bearian (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination (see page history). Liz 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Event chart

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only two references are from "Astrology Weekly" which appears to be a promotional blog. Un assiolo (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Un assiolo (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Puri–Jodhpur Superfast Express

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

Non-notable, this is an unnamed train and the "name" is basically "- Express" (redirect therefore makes little sense). Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Deprodded by User:‎Thryduulf. Викидим (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge per the detailed rationale I've given previously. Readers of the encyclopaedia will benefit from encyclopaedic information being merged rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
(this applies to the next three entries as well) Merging articles about WP:ROTM trains will produce non-searchable, non-official, never-up-to-date copy of a railway schedule with little encyclopedic value. Викидим (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Due to the nature of the service (generic unnamed train) there is no suitable merge or redirect target that would not also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom and as per the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Jaipur–Jodhpur Intercity Superfast Express

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

Merge per the detailed rationale I've given previously. Readers of the encyclopaedia will benefit from encyclopaedic information being merged rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Due to the nature of the service (generic unnamed train) there is no suitable merge or redirect target that would not also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom and as per the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Bilaspur–NSC Bose Itwari Intercity Superfast Express

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

Merge per the detailed rationale I've given previously. Readers of the encyclopaedia will benefit from encyclopaedic information being merged rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Due to the nature of the service (generic unnamed train) there is no suitable merge or redirect target that would not also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom and as per the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Dadar Western–Ekta Nagar Superfast Express

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

Merge per the detailed rationale I've given previously. Readers of the encyclopaedia will benefit from encyclopaedic information being merged rather than deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Due to the nature of the service (generic unnamed train) there is no suitable merge or redirect target that would not also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom and as per the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. The consensus is that the independent coverage satisfies the general notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000

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

unlike $456,000 Squid Game in Real Life!, this video has received no critical analysis, and received no sustained coverage. most of the article is about the content of the video. ltbdl☃ (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ltbdl☃ (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 22. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: coverage seems independent and significant so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Leaning delete: MrBeast is a very popular figure, his videos get millions and millions of views, and as such I've seen so many outlets (many of them tabloid-y) report on his videos. We need to be cautious on what counts for notability. The sources used here are very limited, some of them interviews with the contestants (which are primary) and as pointed out, no sustained coverage can be found, thus why I'm leaning delete. Can also be easily merged/redirected to MrBeast as an WP:ATD. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
~~merge for now~~ A Google News search turns up very little. The sources in the article are okay, but not great. I hate using "mainstream media coverage" as a bar, but I'm shocked by just how little mainstream media coverage there is. The coverage in the article may be over the WP:N bar, I'm not sure. But editorially I think we're better off with a merge to an appropriate Mr. Beast page. I'll not be shocked by more coverage coming out in the next few months (and probably in a book or two in the next year or so). And that may cause us to reconsider. But for now, I think a merge is the best outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "I think we're better off with a merge to an appropriate Mr. Beast page", MrBeast#Mainstream success (2021–2024) is the only candidate for a merge I can find. A merge to that article would be undue weight. Are there other articles you had in mind? I am open to a merge if several paragraphs of this article can be merged to the target article (which would not be possible with MrBeast#Mainstream success (2021–2024)). Cunard (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  - I missed this, but yeah, that's the best I'd seen and was thinking just a few sentences. But I'm now looking at the sources you found. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    - Sources identified by Cunard place us over the WP:N bar (I only looked at the provided summaries, but that's enough for me to see they have the depth required). Updating to keep. As always, impressed with the find and the details provided by Cunard. Hobit (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Leaning towards Delete. Most of the sources given and I found on ths internet has is little, but as Hobit said, it may soon be so Draftify-ing it could also be a solution Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect for now to any suitable Mr. Beast article per Itbdl's comments since this video has little encyclopedic importance nor gaining any significant coverage by media. Unless more sources are found, this article can have its own page. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Summary of sources
50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000 is a YouTube video. The relevant notability criterion is Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
Just like for films and television series, there is no requirement for web content like YouTube videos to have received sustained coverage in reliable sources.
This YouTube video received significant coverage in multiple countries:
1. Chile: La Tercera
2. Pakistan: The Express Tribune
3. South Korea: Maeil Business Newspaper
4. Uruguay: El Observador
It is rare for a YouTube video to receive such international coverage, which strongly contributes to the video's notability. The sources describe the competition in the video in detail. La Tercera notes criticism from influencers about how the contest was too Americentric. There is enough coverage for this YouTube video to meet Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)#Criteria.
The only candidate for a merge I can find is MrBeast#Mainstream success (2021–2024). A merge to that article would either be undue weight or would result in the loss of too much sourced encyclopedic content. If consensus is against a standalone article, however, the article should redirect to MrBeast#Mainstream success (2021–2024), where the video is already mentioned.

Sources
1. "JaidenAnimations wins MrBeast's $1 million YouTube challenge, outlasting Logan Paul and KSI". The Express Tribune. 2024-07-14. Archived from the original on 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "In a thrilling turn of events, JaidenAnimations emerged victorious in MrBeast's $1 million YouTuber challenge, where 50 of the biggest creators were confined in a cube, battling various challenges. The task, simple on paper, demanded mental and physical endurance as contestants navigated eliminations through basketball shots, a Squid Game-inspired sugar cookie challenge, and a high-stakes Jenga competition."
2. José Gómez, María (2024-07-24). "Cómo fue el bizarro experimento social de MrBeast con 50 influencers y un millón de dólares". La Tercera (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2024-07-28. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "On this occasion, the American youtuber launched "50 Youtubers fight for $1,000,000," a record of more than 40 minutes that portrays how some of the most famous content creators in the world gathered to perform a challenge and earn a millionaire sum of money. ... For his YouTube channel, MrBeast held a massive meeting that included 50 content creators from different countries. Ibai Llanos, El Rubius, Logan Paul, Nil Ojeda, Kai Cenat and KSI were some of the figures who joined the meeting. ... However, some influencers were not very happy with their participation. This is the case of the Spanish Ibai Llanos, who said that although in general the experience was positive, he considers that Spanish-speaking YouTubers did not have the same prominence as Americans."
3. "Youtuber uruguayo Fede Vigevani compitió junto a Ibai y otros influencers en un reto por US$ 1 millón de MrBeast: este fue su resultado" . El Observador (in Spanish). 2024-07-17. Archived from the original on 2024-07-28. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "The video focuses on a competition where 50 of the most important creators in the world, including prominent names such as Mark Rober, Quackity, and others, are locked in glass boxes. The last one to go out would earn a million dollars. During the recording, participants had to face several challenges, such as throwing a basket to win a Cybertruck for a subscriber. Fede participates in a challenge inspired by the Squid Game series, where he must cut a cookie in the shape of an umbrella. In the end, he loses in this challenge and is eliminated. Jaiden Animations, an influencer with 13 million followers, managed to keep the first place and promised to use that amount to send several of her fans to the art school."
4. Bahng, Youngdouk (2024-07-14). "Travel YouTuber "Kwak Tube" (Kwak Jun-bin) has released a review of his participation in the survival program of YouTuber "Mr. Beast," which has the largest number of subscribers in the world". Maeil Business Newspaper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-28. Retrieved 2024-08-26.
  The article notes: "In the accommodation provided by Mr. Beast, there were convenience goods engraved with the name of Kwak Tube, as well as gifts such as AirPods Pro and chocolate. In the closet, a T-shirt for the survival game was hung in advance, and the number "1 million" estimated to be the number of subscribers was written on the back of the T-shirt."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000" to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)#Criteria, which requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself".
Cunard (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep as per the international newspaper articles coverage identified above by Cunard that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as the article meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (angular frequency)

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

This seems like a completely random selection of statistics, not something discussed as a group as such? Fram (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, keep. Why is this list any less desirable than all the other articles titled "Orders of magnitude (quantity)"? "completely random selection of statistics, not something discussed as a group as such"? In that case, i wouldn't say no to rewriting the article. However, is the list of data on this article, any more random than the data on other "Orders of magnitude" articles; and if so, how? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I see that e.g. for length, we have named, systematic orders of magnitude: here, we don't seem to have anything comparable. Fram (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Some relevant past AfDs: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (probability), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angle), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1 myriametre. --JBL (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nobody uses angular frequency with respect to any orbital quantity AFAIK, certainly not in the Sun and Earth "references". This is implicit in the note, which has to explain how the numbers are calculated.Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. All the examples in the table, to my knowledge, are more often described in terms of their period or frequency (not angular frequency). I have never seen this use case in planetary science, or indeed any use case for quantities not close in magnitude to unity (since all SI prefixes are applied only to Hz). Additionally, since 1 Hz = 2π rad/s, orders of magnitude for angular frequency will always be the same or different by 1 with respect to orders of magnitude for frequency, so in that sense the new article is a content fork of Orders of magnitude (frequency). Perhaps a redirect there could be an alternative to deletion, but given the absence of named orders of magnitude for angular frequency, I'm not totally convinced of the usefulness of such a redirect. /_Rational 13:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: what is the purpose of such a list? - Parejkoj (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: for reasons already stated above. Aldebarium (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as stated above. ‹hamster717🐉› 02:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as essentially redundant with Orders of magnitude (frequency) (which includes comparable entries such as the Earth's orbital frequency and a galactic year). Praemonitus (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep the article. (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 08:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Oyinkansola "foza" Fawehinmi

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

Sources are announcements, statements, interview and trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG and all other relevant notability criteria. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep, Sources 1 and 10 talk about her book; while not reviews, they are in RS and go a bit in depth into her career. Those are about the best sources I can pull up as well. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I am very okay with the current sources, some which provides SIGCOV in her works/career. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Joel Osikel

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

Notability-tagged for two years. U17 player whose career didn't really pan out. Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. I only found coverage in databases, match reports or primary sources. The closest things to significant coverage was this (does not give in-depth info about him), this, this and this (short, little significance) Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - best source appears to be the transfer announcement already in the article, not enough for GNG Spiderone 13:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. One of those article about football players, the subject of whom, outside of self-published sources and stats page that mirror each other do not have enough independent reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Gideon Ofori Offei

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

BLPsources-tagged for two years. Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Games in Europe came in lower divisions, except for 44 minutes in Albania's highest league. I only found coverage in databases, match reports, primary sources or unreliable rumours. The closest things to significant coverage was this (with no prose whatsoever) and this (primary source). Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No significant coverage. Only primary sources and match reports are found. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Michael A. DeMayo

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

I don't know what to make of this article. Most of the sources available are marginal or sponsored or self, including for the firm, and the most reliable sources are only about disciplinary action against the attorney by the North Carolina Bar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The owner of a non-notable law firm in North Carolina with few sources to suggest WP:ANYBIO, different from all the thousands of other law firm heads. I found little in coverage other than this article in The Charlotte Observer about him being censured by the State Bar and how he narrowly avoided being suspended because of false drama. GuardianH (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Eser (company)

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

I cannot help it with finding better sources. Looks like not notable company and not sufficient reliable media. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 10:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and that there is nothing in the sources that passes WP:SIRS. GuardianH (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct a misstatement, the article creator is not blocked for sockpuppetry for any other reason. Liz 07:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Jhanjeri

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

CGC does not meet the notability standards for WP:NSCHOOL (WP:GNG and WP:NCORP). Since for-profit educational organizations are regarded as commercial entities, they must adhere to these criteria. Also see, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Charlie (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Charlie (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment article creator, and a second account that edited the article, have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Hampton

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 3 of the 4 sources are primary. No coverage of her coaching or managerial career either. Also searched abc.net.au with no hits. Australian field hockey players that are notable tend to have played for the national team. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. A google search of the name, if you do not add the word 'hockey' to the search, would show results for a different person. Once you add 'hockey' to the search the first page is just social media, Knowledge (XXG), other sites that mirror the contents of Knowledge (XXG), and by page 2, again, it's already results for a different person. Prof.PMarini (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Balitang K. Liz 05:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Balitang Kris

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

None of the sources even mention this show, but as it has already been draftified for that reason and some people object to redraftification, AfD it is. Completely non-notable very short-lived TV show. Fram (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Fram (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Balitang K, from which this was apparently a short-lived spinoff. In a search for secondary coverage in RS, all I could find was Kris takes over 'Balitang K' slot (routine coverage in a RS) and this passing mention in a source operated by GMA, so the source is reliable but not independent. Wikishovel (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Kris Aquino -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Balitang K and not to Kris Aquino. HueMan1 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the "Balitang K" article per Wikishovel. -Ian Lopez @ 11:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Balitang K as it is a spinoff, as noted by and based on the sources found by Wikishovel. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to its predecessor Balitang K. Fails WP:NTV alone unlike Balitang K. SBKSPP (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Liz 05:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Tuleap

AfDs for this article:

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

I note the two prior AfDs. I also note the banner at the head containing multiple flags for improvements not addressed since September 2018. I suggest that they have not been addressed because they cannot be addressed. Fails WP:GNG, is improperly sourced, and is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, Software, and France. C F A 💬 00:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent What do you have to say for Stephen Schulz's argument towards keeping? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever. If you wish to make that argument in this discussion please make it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep then. It has been brought up before that many sources such as Infoworld, LinuxFR, Silicon, a lot of stuff from Opensource.com, etc confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep I removed the links to Tuleap's own web site and slide decks. There is the one long article in opensource.com which is, however, an interview with one of the founders. This article has a decently long section on the software. And it has been listed as a "top X" software package. I think we need at least one more substantial article to make this a solid "keep". And ideally it shouldn't be from opensource.com because we already have that as a source many times. Lamona (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero 07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete as I believe this reads too much like an advertisement WP:PROMO. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
That can be fixed. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men). Liz 05:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ilyes Boughalem

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

Delete or redirect to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men). No significant coverage of Boughalem. Anyone who competes in powerlifting (local to international) can be included to All Powerlifting and Open Powerlifting, the cited websites.

ViciousViper47 (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 15. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men) as per nominator. There are not enough sources indicating WP:SIGCOV to merit a standalone WP article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as a sensible WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Capehart, Indiana

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

Labelled "Hyatt Capehart P.O." in a 1944 topo, it appears to be a rail spot or may just a 4th class post office. Searching is heavily masked by the senator and the federal office building named after him, and apparently a zillion relatives, but the only reference I found to it was as an entry in a list of no-longer-there towns in a very folksy newspaper item; I'm not terribly impressed with the article but in any case mere inclusion in a list is not good enough. Mangoe (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I looked back through a couple sets of historical Daviess county maps ; I couldn't find any reference to Capehart, and nothing on the maps indicated a settlement ever existed there, even well into the 20th century. The most I can see is that there was a named stop called "Hyatt" on the railway line between Washington and Plainville, but that by itself doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability. ╠╣uw 12:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

●Comment - May be named after or be related to this https://daviesscounty.pastperfectonline.com/Photo/6420FB20-7AC6-4356-9D32-914888446952 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings leaves this discussion as No consensus. Liz 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Edward Henry Burke Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful at this point. "Fails GNG" is not specific enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. I'm suprised that after all of these years I have to say this, but if your argument is, "If X is deleted, then you have to delete Y & Z. too!" is not a valid argument to make in an AFD and nothing will happen as a result of this comment. If you believe Y & Z should be deleted, then take the time to nominate them for an AFD discussion yourself. Right now, regarding this article, I don't see a consensus. Liz 05:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment the list talks about cities. Except for Singapore which is its own case. I think this topic is note worthy. I recommend changing the name of the article to List of ASEAN cities by minimum wage. If you have countries, subdivisions and cities togethor, you will get an enormous list. I think you should start with cities and then build from that. If it is kept and reliable sources are used. I am in favour of keeping article. O.maximov (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors. If you can offer your opinion on this article, please cast a "vote" on what should happen to it (and why).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NLIST here and here. It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE scan was done. More could be found in journals. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, looking like "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not an expert but appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment not to WP:BADGER, but how about the sources that I listed? -1ctinus📝🗨 22:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz 05:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of firearms

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

The article List of firearms along with a half dozen extracted out of it (List of firearms (A), List of firearms (B), List of firearms (C), List of firearms (M), List of firearms (R), List of firearms (S)) are pretty much unsourced, and a mess (I did some case fixing on a few). Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Having things listed in a sortable table would be more useful. This is a valid navigational list, and allows more information than a category would so is more useful. You do not need sources for a navigation list, only an article for them to link to that confirms they should be on the list. Dream Focus 06:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs a lot more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Valid navigational list. Kind of a disaster but a useful one IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep per DreamFocus. It is a mess, but that isn't a rationale for deletion. Various other lists such as List of machine guns and List of pistols (or a new List of firearm manufacturers) might (eventually) make the main body removable, but the article would still need to be kept as Lists of firearms. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Surely this could just be a category? The list does nothing that categorization doesn't do. Just Step Sideways 23:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete An already cumbersome mess which, if ever completed, would be so bloated as to have no use at all. What's next, a list of automobiles by VIN? Qwirkle (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It is a valid navigational list. There is improvement potential so should be edited rather than deleted. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Cubana de Aviación destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability - indeed one is actually a link to what appears to be a review of the film Cars 3.

The overwhelming majority of destinations listed here are listed as "Terminated" so this list is also un-necessary, and already adequately covered by the sentence "Cubana operates flights to over 20 destinations in Cuba, Europe, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America" in the main article. To the extent that there is any encyclopaedic interest in Cubana's previous destinations, this is already covered by the page History of Cubana de Aviación. This page is therefore entirely redundant. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cuba. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment As I said in other deletion discussions regarding airline destinations, in the case of mass removal of these articles I will quit Knowledge (XXG) for good. I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this over and over again.--Jetstreamer 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:IINFO. As the flag carrier of Cuba, Cubana de Aviación certainly has a unique history, and it is entirely appropriate to discuss the development of its route network over time, which people have done in the parent article. What I cannot support is a list of every single city this airline has flown to since it was established almost a century ago. I see no need for us to document that at one point in its existence Cubana flew to some random destination that appears in its 1949 timetable. Such a list falls outside the scope of our encyclopedia.
As a side note the link mentioned above can be found in the Internet Archive where it leads to an article about Cubana flights to Martinique. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep per repeated precedent. The closure of the most recent one I remember cited Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Knowledge (XXG) have lists of transportation service destinations?, Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Knowledge (XXG) have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles in determining that there is no consensus for deletion. In the AfD review the "no consensus" close was endorsed, a number of paths forward were suggested to those trying to delete these articles to establish a new consensus. Instead, it seems that these disruptive nominations are continuing. Worth noting that there was yet another discussion about Aeroflot destinations also earlier this year which resulted in keep. Do we have to keep doing this? Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The last ten AFDs on Airline destination lists have all closed as delete/merge (see here), and roughly 2/3rd of the Airline destination lists that were ever created (~300 out of ~470) have now been deleted. Well-attended AFDs included this one deleting 120 airline destination articles and this one deleting 82 airline destination articles. Two of these deletion discussions were also endorsed on review.

Moreover discussions about what lists to include on Airport articles are pretty irrelevant to an article that is not an Airport article, and a no-consensus close cannot be used to assert a consensus in favour of any particular outcome. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - This article includes the statement: "Frankfurt is currently a terminated destination for the airline". This appears to be based on a comparison of primary sources (a listing of destinations in the 1996 World Airline Directory - a sort of Yellow Pages for airlines, and a listing of destinations in a drop-down menu on the Cubana website from 2010). How is this kind of synthesis of primary sources to reach a conclusion that neither states not original research?

The reality is, this isn't a defensible statement, because there's a number of different explanations as to why an airline might have had a destination listed in a directory in 1996 but not be offering that service in 2010. These include an error in the original listing, the Frankfurt service being planned but never actually started, and the Frankfurt service still operating in 2010 but not being listed by mistake. Moreover since no date is given for the list, the implication is that this service is still not being offered now, when in reality we only know that it wasn't being offered in 2010 - and in reality Cubana are selling flights from Frankfurt on their website right now.

This kind of original research/verifiability problem is present throughout this corpus of articles. Indeed, the article under discussion is largely made up of services listed as "terminated" based on identically-flawed reasoning. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Cubana de Aviación#Destinations as an alternative to deletion – Whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this matter, I feel like the information from this article could be merged, summarised and redirected to Cubana's destinations page as this would provide much more information and context to Cubana's history as an airline, rather than splitting the destinations into a shorter page with not much context given. Whilst sourcing does certainly exist, in my opinion, I do not think it is enough to justify a standalone article (Based on WP:PAGEDECIDE). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Previously voted redirect, changed vote to a merge. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep As per my other AfDs I don't think WP:NOT applies here, as these destinations are frequently covered in WP:GNG-qualifying sources. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The other thing to note is that those claiming WP:NOT - there's no broad consensus about whether these actually fail WP:NOT as a group at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is even less of a consensus now than when this discussion was relisted the first time. How do folks think about the possibility of a Merge that was brought up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Based on precedent as we have plenty of other articles like this for other airlines. Also per SportingFlyer. At the most a merge would be ok but if we’re going to have this information up anyway I see no reason to not have it on a seperate page from the actual airline.

Flyingfishee (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Precedent is very much the other way, since 300 such articles have now been deleted, with the last 15 AFDs about airline destination lists all closing as delete/redirect/merge. I also note that no-one has produced any sources (and that the standard here is anyway WP:NCORP, not WP:GNG, because this is an article about the services of a company). FOARP (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
There are sources already in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
And which of those sources passes WP:NCORP and WP:NLIST? FOARP (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn‎. Withdrawn nomination. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Screams

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

No actual reviews found, just interviews and press release type material from niche horror publications, which aren't even reviews. The best source is this, which while including an interview is preceded by several paragraphs of evaluative seemingly independent material, so I would count it. However, there is nothing else. Could add to List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: Very week, the Bloody Disgusting source is a RS per Project Horror, and I've found this , which seems ok. No book reviews I can find, but two articles about the book. That's about all I can pull up. I'm happy to revisit if others can find better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
For the record, the article you linked is what I mentioned in my nom, hahaha - yes, that source is fine, wish there was more like it. My issue with the Bloody Disgusting source is that it was prior to its release and doesn't really say much useful about it, simply quoting the author and saying the book would come out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep I found this review from PopHorror, which like Bloody Disgusting is considered reliable by the horror project.★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That is the kind of coverage I wanted to see, that looks good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Kathleen Dalziel

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

Fails WP:POET. A search in google books and Australian database Trove found only small mentions but not SIGCOV. This may be due to the fact that very little of her work was published. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Austlit shows coverage, some shown below. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Australian Women's Mirror has an article that "Discusses Dalziel's work and provides some biographical detail". In vol 4 no 23 1 May 1928
The Bulletin has a review in 1 October vol 62 no 3216 1941
Meanjin Papers has a review in Summer vol 1 no 6 1941
Southerly has an obituary over 5 pages in Southerly vol 30 no 3 1970

Keep: Austlit entry with its citations shows notability. PamD 08:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Re "very little of her work was published" in nomination: it seems that she published many poems in newspapers and magazines, which may not be showing up in a 21st-century online search, as well as the one book. PamD 08:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I've found the 1928 article and added it as "Further reading". Clearly notable. PamD 08:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Liz 05:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel

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

This article fails WP:GNG, lacks inline citations and lacks secondary sources. Googling the "Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel" returns results only from the U.S. Code. While there are some mentions from newspaper stories, they are all from April 1996 when this panel was supposedly created and are just the same wire story or stories syndicated over and over. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Law, and United States of America. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete I previously added a PROD tag to this article but it was removed without the concerns being addressed. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. As nom says completely lacking sources and no evidence good ones exist. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which created the panel. There is significant coverage in newspapers, periodicals and other sources that are not part of the US Code, in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that a commentary on the US Code is not the same thing as the US Code. James500 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, per James500, who is correct in “that a commentary on the US Code is not the same thing as the US Code.” Bearian (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hamood Al Yazidi

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Azarctic (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG with no notability proved.

Priscilladfb16 (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 01:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Kim Chol-bom

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea as ATD. Corresponding article on Korean Knowledge (XXG) is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Football at the 2014 Asian Games – Men's team squads. The player does not meet Knowledge (XXG)’s notability guidelines. No significant coverage and sources. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to Sam Brown (artist). Liz 05:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Amazing Rain

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

After searching for reviews, I haven't been able to find anything about this book except a single article on ProQuest (from F.O.B.) without SIGCOV. I don't think this passes NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment not enough for NBOOK, but I found one review from Punk Planet that looks to me to be fine, if a bit short (I'd still classify it as sigcov though). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm unable to find anything else, so I'd support redirecting this into Sam Brown (artist). I'll add the reception from that one review later to his article because I think it helps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect as PARAKANYAA suggests. I did a search and also checked the "usual sources" (Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus) for reviews and found nothing. Lamona (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Sam Brown (artist) (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)