Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 redirect‎ to List of Denmark List A cricketers. Liz 23:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Nielsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Sources provided are primary. Only played 1 list A game in his career. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 7 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 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 23:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jyoti Punwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this journalist. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 7 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 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. Liz 23:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Céphas Bansah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per StellarHalo Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:28, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 23:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Denis Ingoldsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG.Theroadislong(talk) 22:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, Fails all WP:GNG.

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Profire Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:14, 7 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 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 23:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Legends of Skyfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find coverage for either the series or any of its individual books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 7 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 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 redirect‎ to Robert Anton Wilson#Plays and screenplays. Liz 23:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The Walls Came Tumbling Down (Wilson book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sigcov found. Redirect to author Robert Anton Wilson?

FWIW this is not "a film script", it's a novel written like a film script. I think. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 7 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 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 merge‎ to List of VR Troopers characters#Villains. This section of the target article is empty, just a link to the article discussed here so a Merge should not be that complicated. Liz 23:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of villains in VR Troopers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non notable spinout from List of VR Troopers characters. Both lists fail WP:SIGCOV but we have to start somewhere. The other list would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 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 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 merge‎ to Doctor Who#History. Liz 23:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Behind the sofa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is promoting a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:BEFORE does show that this phrase has been used in passing by a few journalists, but fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is seriously padded by editors' WP:OR observations expressing excitement that they have seen the phrase used by a journalist. Once you clean up the WP:OR, there is very little to keep (maybe a redirect to List of Doctor Who home video releases#Blu-ray). Jontesta (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Doctor Who#History where the topic is already discussed. This is definitely a notable expression and phrase but there isn't really enough to support a whole article on the subject, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:08, 8 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 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 redirect‎ to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. Liz 23:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Steve Sarvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former mayor. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Clint Eastwood was Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in the late 1980s.

While this article does not mention it, he has since continued his career as a city administrator in other Minnesota municipalities, but the coverage there is run of the mill coverage of any city administrator. There is nothing so unique about it that it warrants the city administrator himself having an article. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts it goes into his professional history in a lot of detail, but that is a mask for a lack of GNG. Mpen320 (talk) 21:28, 7 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 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. No comments since the last relist so I don't think a third will be helpful. Editors can pursue turning this article into a Redirect thought an article talk page discussion. Liz 23:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1, Ref 2,, and Ref 3. Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Filming already started and they have a release date, there's no reason to delete the page. KingArti (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:28, 7 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 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and there have been no response to my relisting comment. Liz 23:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with few reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources. This is one of the only reviews I could find, and it's in a publication of uncertain reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Lists PTGamers.com and Gamerstek.com under external links. Primary source IgelRM (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Both sites are now dead, which doesn't speak towards their reliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
DeleteKeep - Gamerstek review is archived here: . According to their about page, they had a video game section in Destak newspaper, which indicates some sort of reliability. However, it's a moot point if there are no other potential reliable sources since 1 review is not enough. PTGamers.com review ref seems completely dead, but looking at their archived main site () there doesn't seem to be an about page or similar, I can't find anything to indicate any reliability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that Push Start ref, which is an independently published digital magazine, seems unreliable to me looking at the editorial page: . --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Gamerstek and Mega Score reviews are enough for GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The game got in-depth coverage in a June 2004 issue of Mega Score, including an interview (p.30, 31), and a review (p.70, 71). The only other coverage I was able to find is a brief mention of the game in a 2021 article from the newspaper Observador about video games about Portugal. It's possible that the game got coverage in Portuguese newspapers at the time of release (Newspapers.com has no Portuguese newspapers unfortunately and I wouldn't know where else to look), as the Observator article and the interview in Mega Score indicate that the game was partially funded by Soure city hall. Waxworker (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I found a dead link from TSF (radio station). It might be useful to mention the game on the Visão article. IgelRM (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the reviews presented above. Two reliable reviews, good enough for me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus to Keep there is a challenge on whether sources are of a sufficient quality to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:27, 7 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 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 keep. BD2412 T 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Marlinspike Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline and the more detailed Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Knowledge (XXG) page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 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 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 redirect‎ to Ankush Hazra#Filmography. Liz 23:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ankush Hazra filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mostly unsourced and WP:PROMO WP:CONTENTFORK of Ankush_Hazra#Filmography that is entirely unnecessary due to the reasonable length of the actor's main bio article. A PROD was contested and a redirect was removed; I would be content with either delete or the restoration of a stable redirect to Ankush_Hazra#Filmography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 18:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Boketo Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of independent notability per WP:CORP. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find any coverage in secondary WP:RS, and only the two primary sources cited actually mention the company. The company's founder appears to be notable as a YouTube comedian and producer, and the company claims some notable clients, but on Knowledge (XXG) notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • References that failed verification have been removed and the first paragraph has been revised to remove promotional tone. The company, though not extensively covered in secondary sources, plays a crucial role in the success of notable artists mentioned in the article. This indirect impact, while not always explicitly mentioned in media, is significant in the context of the artists' achievements and industry presence. Boketo Media's contributions to the independent music and media scenes, through its work with notable clients, warrant recognition and justify its inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). KelliverLucklile (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "The company, though not extensively covered in secondary sources" is the issue. To show notability, it should have significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 12 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 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 redirect‎ to Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. ✗plicit 03:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Near duplicate of tables seen at Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Narrowly focuses on artistic gymnastics, but not enough substance to strengthen the stand-alone article or page. Well, the tables of men's and women's medal counts separate each other in this article, but I can't help wonder whether to move the separate tables of medal counts into another page, Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Oh well, default to merging into that article if uncontested. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect or Merge which I believe is what the nominator is suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:27, 7 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 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 Withdrawn‎. Sources presented (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Law of Success (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm at a loss as for what to do with this article, as despite the fact it has been reprinted dozens of times over a nearly 100 year period and has many many mentions everywhere I am unable to find any useful significant discussion on it besides the library journal piece from 2008. It seems to have many different titles and was not initially a book? There are thousands of mentions of it but I can't find any sigcov even though I feel like it has to exist, just brief mentions in the context of his career or just saying what the book says with no discussion. This is one of those self help business books, perhaps one of the first big ones, and there's a high likelihood much of what the author said is false. I really just want to resolve the notability tag. If, somehow, there are no additional useful sources, redirect to author Napoleon Hill#The Law of Success. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Ritt, Jr., Michael J.; Landers, Kirk (1995). A Lifetime of Riches: The Biography of Napoleon Hill. New York: Dutton Publishing. ISBN 0-525-94146-0. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Internet Archive.

      Law of Success is discussed extensively in the 1995 book A Lifetime of Riches: The Biography of Napoleon Hill. Here is the index showing which pages it is discussed on:

      Law of Success, 211
      early sales, 115–16
      endorsements, 113
      format and ideas in, 116–20, 151
      movie idea, 132
      published, 109–16
      royalties, 114, 120–22, 131–32, 189, 203
      sales during Depression, 129–31
      See also Carnegie success book project

      The book notes on page 209: "As soon as he returned home with the stationery, he dashed off a letter to Florence asking her to send him all the sets of his Law of Success texts that were stored in the attic. Ever the organizer, the books he wanted were packed neatly in a shipping crate that had just enough room for ... The shipment from Florence arrived about two weeks later; Nap then filled the time with a flurry of activity. He had one set of his Law of Success manuscripts bound in expensive leather covers and the pages embossed in gold. As he waited for the binding to be completed, he spent the better part of two days and nights compiling a list of publishers and business acquaintances to call on, then set to work organizing and rehearsing the presentation he would make. Then Hill embarked on a dizzying succession of personal calls on Philadelphia publishers and businesses, and telephone calls and letters to out-of-town candidates."

      The book notes on page 110: "Book publishers were aghast at the financial risks involved in a fifteen-hundred-page, eight-volume philosophy text bearing the name of an author with little or no standing in the commercial book trade."

      The book notes on page 117: "Volume I of the Law of Success was a flawed, rambling, sometimes incomprehensible document that a skilled text editor with a strong sense of book market imperatives might have condensed to a slick, fast-reading, fifty-page chapter. Indeed, the other seven volumes were similarly flawed, though to a more modest degree. But reduced to safe, conventional publishing practices. Law of Success would most likely have been a very ordinary book with a very temporary life. Its imperfect, unvarnished defiance of convention was part of its raw power and freshness. These qualities would remain through four different editions, countless printings, and more than sixty years of active sales."

    2. Heilbrun, Margaret (December 2008). "The Law of Success: The Master Wealth-Builder's Complete and Original Lesson Plan for Achieving Your Dreams". Library Journal. Vol. 133, no. 20. p. 138. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "It reads as a fascinating amalgam of what has since become familiar—interviewing notables and learning their means of success, thus formulating key principles for others to use—and what has not, e.g., Hill's assumption that self-help readers will take on hundreds of pages of text, complete with dollops of Shakespeare and Leigh Hunt, plus Hill's own allegories, none of it predigested or accompanied by worksheets."

    3. "The Law of Success". California Bookwatch. April 2009. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Joel Fotinos provides a clear and solid reading of the fifteen principles to winning, written by a motivational leader who builds a lesson plan for achievement."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Law of Success to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Cunard Thank you very much! I thought it had to exist, but I was at a loss because 90% of what I found was just reprints of the book, hah. I should have thought to look at biographies on Hill. I will withdraw and add the sources later today. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:18, 11 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 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 merge‎ to List of My Little Pony characters. Liz 18:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:16, 7 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 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. ✗plicit 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mifflin, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 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 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. (non-admin closure)‎ KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiBhasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Knowledge (XXG)-related article should be moved to Knowledge (XXG) namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 18:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
J. C. France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This might fail WP:NMOTORSPORT — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Am I reading it correctly that he only competed in one professional race? It appears he did not qualify (DNQ) and withdrew (WD) a few times, but I only see one actual race listed in all those tables. Being a member of the France family does not make him notable, so he needs to have made a name for himself in racing, and I don't see it. - Donald Albury 21:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Thought I had found something here, but it just links to a bunch of news items, each of which just mentions J.C. as part of a driving team. I have found a number of pieces about his drunk-driving arrest, but that doesn't help. Also found a column he wrote himself about what he is doing now, and an interview which might be usable for details, but not for establishing notability. Donald Albury 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep France competed in multiple full seasons of professional Grand Am racing. I will make that clear in the article. -Drdisque (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    ...but is there anything there to assert notability? The state of the article does not help. Often, I say rip it up and start afresh. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, he unequivocally passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. -Drdisque (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Grand-Am Daytona Prototypes - coming from a rare fan of the class - would be, in my opinion, a "primarily-professional series of significant national importance", not of "international importance" like I think you're arguing. Subject doesn't appear to have won any DP races, which is what would get a driver who competed at a level no higher than DP (which frankly, was never that high) to pass NMOTORSPORT. But that doesn't mean we should go around finding every DP driver article and sending it to AfD, as NMOTORSPORT really only tells us whether or not someone is likely to pass WP:GNG or not. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - GNG is not met. Most of what I found on google about this subject is inadmissible per WP:BLPCRIME as subject was not found guilty of what the headlines accuse him of, and would fail WP:ROUTINE regardless. Most of what remains are the usual database sources such as racing-reference, DriverDB, etc. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:38, 12 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 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 merge‎ to Zenless Zone Zero. Liz 19:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Zenless Zone Zero characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Gamecruft, in-universe list IgelRM (talk) 19:34, 7 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 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 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 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Muhammed Bozdağ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has notability problem and sources don't provide this. İmmortalance (talk) 19:07, 7 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 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 Withdrawn‎. Sources presented (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Dread Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find anything that discusses this book in depth. It's cited in a few places, but nothing discussing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 7 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 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 redirect‎ to Singapore Airlines#Destinations. Liz 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP. Redundant.

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

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources required by WP:ORGIND. Instead the article is almost entirely cited to SIA Cargo's annual reports/website, the sole exceptions being a one-paragraph report on Aircargonews.net (which is trade-press), a press-release from Copenhagen airport (a business-partner of SIA Cargo and so not independent) and a press-release from the Scottish Government about a speech at a dinner marking the start of services from Presswick (again, not independent).

The page is redundant because SIA Cargo's services completely over-lap with those of Singapore Airlines, and the destinations of Singapore Airlines are already adequately summarised at Singapore_Airlines#Destinations. FOARP (talk) 16:46, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Bank of Carmel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

extra hyper-local run of the mill buildings that does not fall under WP:GEOFEAT because it's not protected under national status. Trivial coverage in an Oakland newspaper and SF Chronicle, lots of snippet coverages based on ultra hyper-local Carmel-Pinecone weekly tabloid. This appears to be part of the ongoing construction of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden by one creator. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - I haven't yet looked into all of the sources, but at least half of the current ones are press releases, they are not even "trivial coverage", they are press-release based PR announcements placed in newspapers, not SIGCOV. See Knowledge (XXG):Independent_sources#Press_releases for more information. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    What you call press releases are actually important pieces of primary source information that tells a story and is part of the history! For example, "Carmel Notes". Oakland Tribune. Oakland, California. 14 Oct 1923. p. 25. Retrieved 2022-05-24, says "Carmel's new bank was the first and only one the city has had." This indicates it was the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, which is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    No, they are press releases. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't tell if the article is supposed to be about the short-lived bank or the building. If it's about the bank, it fails the WP:NCORP test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS, and if it's about the building, which is not on any historic registers that carry presumed notability, it fails WP:NBUILD, which calls for "significant in-depth coverage." What's offered here is a series of primary sources, trivial local newspaper mentions, and unreliable sources like Arcadia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the nom that this is part of the Carmel WP:Walled garden, yet another run of the mill local building that is not on the NRHP, thus failing WP:BUILD. I am also in agreement with Dclemens1971 that as a bank it does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for SIRS & SIGCOV. The creator still does not seem to understand that notability is not inherited from allegedly "notable" people associated with the structure. What we have in terms of sourcing is: 1) a nomination form by the Parks & Recreation (primary source); 2) a press-release printed in a newspaper (primary source); 3) another press release (primary source), 4) another press release (primary source); 5) a photo and photo caption in a tourist-trade book published by a marginal publisher (Arcadia) whose reliability is questionable (not SIGCOV and low-quality source); 6) a short piece without a by-line in the hyper-local weekly tabloid, The Pine Cone; 7) a meeting agenda (primary source, really wondering why this is even included?); 8) a 404 dead link in The Pine Cone (hyper local weekly tabloid); 9) an advertisement in The Pine Cone (WTF?); 10) a photo and caption in a report by the City of Carmel (primary source). None of this contributes to the notability of the bank as a business nor the building, therefore also fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like Netherzone and Graywalls always come to the plate to delete good articles that have plenty of sources, including primary and secondary ones. This Deletionists mentality is a reason why many have criticism of Knowledge (XXG). An enclypodia should free to write on many topics both of local and national interest. Based on WP:GNG, the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. More sources have been included in the edit request. Instead of trying to delte articles we should be encouraging fellow Wikipedians to add additional sources if needed. I feel that some people are to quick to judge and just delete articles they don't like. That shouldn't be how an enclypodia works to educate them on topics like the first bank in Carmel! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Part of a campaign to get every last ditch of Carmel-by-the-Sea related stuff into Knowledge (XXG), even if they are not notable and there is little to no reliable sourcing, which includes this article. Most of the article's sources are not independent of the subject or are press releases. HarukaAmaranth 01:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    Please also see edit request sources. BTW, the Carmel Bank was a pretty notable bank in its day. It was the first bank in that city. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    The various superlatives of first, biggest, richest, largest, oldest in a local villages and townships are not a cause for creating an encyclopedia article. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete For the reasons outlined by Dclemens1971 and Netherzone Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete – Netherzone's thorough source-by-source analysis is spot-on as usual, and Dclemens1971 also provides an accurate summary of the available coverage and how it squares up to notability guidelines. Left guide (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a platform for local tourism projects, we have guidelines for establishing notability which requires a certain standard from sources, none of which are met here. HighKing 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. This is certainly not tourism! It about the history of bank, which was the 1st bank in the village of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and part of a Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden of non notable entities 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Honestly, it's looking like WP:CreatedbyGregHenderson is going to wind up as one of the tacit reasons to advocate deletion. An obvious GNG fail to anyone not GH, and if he wants to continue to promote Carmel following his community block at ANI, he can do so on his own website, and best of luck to him. Ravenswing 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per the sentiments above. In relation to the use of the press release being used I'd like to point out that even if this was a quick note in the newspaper and not a press release, simply being the "first and only" bank established in a community who's population is rather small (Carmel-by-the-Sea's peaked at about 4,700 residents) is not really proof of any sort of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

List of IrAero destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 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.

The IrAero page is also nominated, also for failing WP:NCORP. The only source that is not the company website or trade-press is a single report by TASS, but this is a report based entirely on a press-release from the company and is a run of the mill report about building a hangar. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, independent sources are required to WP:NCORP, but there is not even one cited in the article nor does a quick search find any. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 7 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 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 keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Alfred Momotenko Levitsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NMUSICOTHER or even general. The "awards" are not prestigious but merely submissions to ensembles (Prix Annelie de Man Ensemble Black Pencil Prize, 150-Years-of-Music-Technology Composition Competition Prize) that "award for performance" in keeping with sites such as composersite.com. Heavy COI that results in sources that are either primary or closely related to subject that mention or preview works. Notability by association in list of compositions (a companion piece for Les cinq doigts by Igor Stravinsky, a companion piece for All-Night Vigil by Sergej Rachmaninov,, Companion piece for Das Lied von der Erde by Gustav Mahler) without real content within a Career section. Stating premieres (The world première was at Koningshoeven Abbey on Saint Cecilia's feast day, 22 November 2014., world premiere was present during the opening of the 25th edition of the festival at De Doelen in Rotterdam, conducted by Valery Gergiev), musical organizations, conductors, etc is no different than any other contemporary composer having their works performed around the world today yet no article representation here at WP. Mere filler and WP:FLUFF content.

Comment. Granted your observations may be correct. However, you mentioned #11 (Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network), can you specifically back those claims with RS found within the article? I am finding dead links and non-links. As for Criterion 3: as well, what "biographical dictionary" are you talking about found within the article? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are the sources in question:

  • 1. worldmusicdays2019.ee. 2019. No longer exists. The site itself is self-promotional by sign-in members.
  • 2. muziekencyclopedie.nl is not an "Encyclopedia". The actual site is: muziekweb.nl/. It is a Dutch lending library. It lists BLP's album Creator of Angels.
  • 4 a,b,c,d,e,f is not a continuous "rotation nationally by a major station". It is merely listing the same broadcast of the BLP's works similar to other musicians featured on the same radio program "Recent broadcasts from Concertzender Amsterdam Organ Park".
  • 5 is the same as 4. Other musicians are also listed multiple times as featured "in residence".
  • 7, 8 & 9 are same.
  • 11, 12, 13: Orgelpark again.
  • 18. Primary to BLP website
  • 19. Same as 4
  • 20. Deadlink
  • 24 & 25. Same as 1. No longer exists. The site itself is self-promotional by sign-in members.
  • 26, 27, 28 no longer exist or bring to a different page.
  • 30-34 are shared with other composers. Not notable specifically to BLP.

Maineartists (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The links from Concertzender, which is (or was?) the Dutch public radio channel, establish criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Criterion 5 is met without question; that alone is sufficient rationale for me to vote "keep". I'm not sure what happened to subject's entry at Muziekencyclopedie. Presumably it was moved elsewhere. At any rate, the entry is archived here, which qualifies it as valid per WP:LR, WP:MDLI, WP:KDL, and WP:DEADREF. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You keep saying this: "The links from Concertzender, which is (or was?) the Dutch public radio channel, establish criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO" but provide no additional sourcing. Just how many "links" are you seeing on this page? Criterion for 11 is for "bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.". Meaning, charting, Billboard, i.e. Taylor Swift song playing No. 1 in the country continuously (in rotation) across national radio stations for weeks at a time. The BLP's radio play was a singular event at the Amsterdam Organ Park. The dates next to the pieces listed on the one-event program are not when they were aired but when they were written. The program was radio-played only once; not in rotation. Please provide additional sources that show a national radio station (or stations) that has played the BLP's music "in rotation. He would have to have a work that is played by classical radio station(s) in rotation; i.e. Taylor Swift. However, I do see the correct link to the Music Encyclopedia (now "Sound and Vision") entry that is basically a three-line bio taken from his own website. If this is what qualifies for entry at WP, then at the very least, this article requires a heavy, heavy scrub and re-construction. Obviously, it will pass this 2nd AfD so I will start reassembly off-site. Thanks Maineartists (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is a qualified disaster, however the Grammophone and Volkskrant reviews are sufficient to keep. There were articles also in the regional press. Urgent cleanup! gidonb (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
COMMENT I am at tendency toward agree at the moment for keep; and I will most certainly be going in and attending with strong intent for an intense cleanup, but it can wait until this closes. Gathering consensus for a complete overhaul will allow a Talk Page reference as to they "why" without the need for debate. I expect there may be push-back due to the COI issue at the article. As well, there are RS being brought here that are not at the article itself that will come in handy; as most sources are now defunct, dead or primary. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
COI can be cleaned up. This is an example of a composer article that I clean up every now and then. So it doesn't contain the information that the person would include himself. It's still an important resource as this composer is constantly played by wind orchestras ("bands") and other ensembles around the US and hence is frequently read. Worthy both of the composer and of WP. Actually I created this one after the bio had been unjustifiably banned. It has the tendency to turn into PEACOCK once in a while. gidonb (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"this composer is constantly played by wind orchestras ("bands") and other ensembles around the US and hence is frequently read." Where? Please provide sources to back this claim. So far, I can only find performance sources within his native land. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Click on the linked "this" to see to which composer I refer. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
??? I'm refering to Alfred Momotenko Levitsky. Not some other composer or their article. So far, we are just talking in circles here and also on the article page as another editor is merely citing sources about the same two things: Orgel Park concert and Creator of Angels CD. But nothing new has been found. There is still no evidence of "rotation" on radio. Aside from the one mere mention in a music publication, all that's being done at present is overkill of sources about the same two achievements. Maineartists (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
What other editors write does not apply to my opinion. I showed you what a cleaned up composer article may look like. Otherwise I have nothing to add. Neither do you, it seems. Rest assured that I had read the intro before forming my opinion! gidonb (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. All problems with the article have been resolved by User:CurryTime7-24. I only tweaked the headers. The topic clearly passes the GNG and NMUSIC. The nomination can be withdrawn or closed as keep. As the nominator put it: I am at tendency toward agree at the moment for keep. gidonb (talk) 04:17, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jay Hunter (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists acting roles, and requires the reception of WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about him and his roles in reliable sources -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to unreliable sources such as blogs, YouTube videos and IMDb. The only source that counts as reliable at all is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an individual television station's local newscast, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if all of the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Simply having had acting roles is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 7 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 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Advokatfirman Vinge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources explicitly about the company. I can't find any myself either. I don't believe this company meets WP:CORP. This article was discussed in AfD almost 10 years ago, but I believe the editorial interpretation of notability has shifted since then. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Europe, and Sweden. Niashervin (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vinge has been one of the dominant law firms in the Nordic countries since the 1980s. I've added better sources to the article. /Julle (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    I can't find any of the sources you cited. Is it possible to read them? Are there sources with similar information that are readily accessible? Even when searching the article names directly on Dagens Industri's website I cannot find them. Niashervin (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Niashervin: They require access to w:sv:Mediearkivet, which is a paid service (or to printed copies of the newspapers, I suppose). These sources are largely from the late 80s and early 90s; they won't be easily accessible online. Any Wikipedian with a Swedish university account should be able to check them, though, and Wikimedia Sweden is paying for access for some editors. If you lack access to Mediearkivet, I recommend you treat them as you would any printed source. /Julle (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know how this "legally" will fit Knowledge (XXG)'s standards of notability, but just for the record:
    If it is a requirement to read into a paid archive to find any sources that make an extant company meet WP:GNG then I don't think it should meet it. If this company really is so noteworthy as a massive law firm, there should me modern references to it. But it doesn't seem like there is any exclusive article on it in the last couple of decades, even as it still runs today. Niashervin (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Niashervin: No, we don't require sources to be readily available online; this would make it impossible to write about many topics which are substantially covered only or mostly in print.
    I'm confident there are more recent sources for this topic too (but they are mentioned so often that you have to go through a lot of hits, 6370 articles in this archive, so it was easier to look through the early years with fewer hits), but I'm not sure that would help – modern Swedish newspaper articles are typically paywalled, too. /Julle (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, misread – the "extant company" part was fairly central to the text I replied to, and I didn't mean to misrepresent what Niashervin wrote. Either way, I think we should treat our sources depending on quality and reliability, not accessability. /Julle (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    An attempt to briefly describe the texts I've used to expand this article.
    • Advokaten bakom avtalet: 1300 words about important law firms. Substantial amount about Vinge. Not exclusively focused on them.
    • Vinge och Sandström går samman: 100 words. Focused on Vinge.
    • Advokatfirman Vinge: Vinge – i särklass i Norden på M&A!: 400 words. Exclusively on Vinge.
    • Svensk advokatbyrå öppnar kontor i Kina: 300 words. Partly about the situation in China.
    • Säkra vinnare: 1000 words. Substantial amount about Vinge, but not exclusively about them.
    • Affärsfolk i farten: Han tar över Vinges Honkongfilial: 200 words.
    I'd consider them to be from high-quality sources. /Julle (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Julle, just to be clear here, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing in-depth independent content then it fails ORGIND.
You've said that the sources are "high quality" sources, but that is only one part of the criteria. Can you confirm that those sources do not rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or their execs, such as regurgitated announcements, interviews or quotation, or information published in reports by the company? Can you confirm that the remaining information, once you exclude the above, meets the criteria of being in-depth "Independent Content"? HighKing 11:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I can make no guarantees, no. These are newspaper articles; they don't come with footnotes. But that's generally true for newspaper articles unless they explicitly make clear that the information is coming from the subject.
(Re-reading the articles, I want to make clear that "substantial" should be read as "definitely more than in passing", but not as "most of the text is focused on Vinge". It isn't.) /Julle (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Though a couple of the articles explicitly build on other sources than Vinge, like "Vinge – i särklass i Norden på M&A!". /Julle (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not mean that accessibility is necessary for sources. My point is the following:
If this company still exists (which it does) and it is notable, then why are there no sources published in the age of the internet? I completely understand if the company no longer exists, or for anything else historical. But, in the decades of the most vast amount of published information, we cannot find anything about this company. Niashervin (talk) 17:39, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Stanley Gilbert Pickard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Distinguished Flying Medal is nowhere near a Victoria Cross, and that's the only claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:48, 7 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 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 keep‎. With a side of nomination withdrawn. Issues can be addressed via editing Star Mississippi 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

YNAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the service or app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing 12:14, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ HighKing 20:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitwise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing 12:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I nominated this topic because the article is about the company, not the product/app. The company does not meet the notability criteria but looking at the reviews, It may be that the product/app has sufficient sourcing to meet GNG/NCORP. I've no objections to reworking the article if that is the case so that the article is then primarily about the product. BTW, the part you highlighted in CORPDEPTH applies when the topic is about a product - NCORP guidelines apply to topics about company or topics about products, but you can't inherit notability from one to establish notability of the other. HighKing 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    You're correct that notability can't be inherited, but things change a bit since sources generally treat Splitwise the app and Splitwise the company as one and the same. If the product weren't the sole thing the company focused on, I'd agree with you. In this case though, I think a simple edit like this would have been a better choice than jumping to deletion. Clearly the subject "Splitwise" is notable and worthy of an article one way or the other—it's basically just a matter of the wording in the lead. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:03, 8 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 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 keep‎. The arguments for keeping have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of preserved Douglas aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Whilst "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about a list of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas aircraft. I have been unable to find reliable significant coverage on both topics. Sources do exist (only for individual entries) albeit only talking about the individual entries, not about the topic in general –List of preserved (McDonnell) Douglas Aircraft–.

I have also nominated <List of preserved Douglas aircraft> since both topics are similar enough as they both cover preserved aircraft and were manufactured by similar companies, whilst also sharing the same issues. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by Dclemens1971, and I also concur regarding WP:LISTPURP. S5A-0043 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • AfC reviewer comment: I had this on my watchlist since I thought someone might try to AfD it. Which is to say that I agree that it looks like "preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft" aren't notable as a set. But "aircraft preservation" is notable, and "McDonnell Douglas" is notable (even individual aircraft models), and whether or not an individual aircraft is preserved is a defining quality of that particular aircraft. There are many broader articles where this kind of information would be relevant, so this is useful for information purposes as a kind of spin-out of those articles. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Lukáš Koprna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Korpna has never played at a professional level and his career lasted a total of 621 minutes. Normally, there is a good chance notability would spark for such young footballers, but he is one of exceptions as this article lacks sufficient source to meet WP:GNG. My Google searches did not show any significant coverage of Korpna. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:08, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While there's no support for the nomination, no one is arguing for retention and I don't see a 2nd relist helping Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Vedaant Madhavan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO & WP:NSPORT. This athlete is not notable yet, did not win any notable championship and fails Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for athlete and biography. Drat8sub (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:24, 7 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 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 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 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Ankit Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:FILMMAKER. He's written and sung songs for what appear to be notable films, but on Knowledge (XXG) notability is not inherited. I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable, secondary English or Malayalam sources (അങ്കിത് മേനോൻ). The best coverage of him I could find in a RS was in Malayala Manorama: this interview (primary source) and this article about his music for a film. The rest is passing mentions. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:23, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Campbell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7. Singer does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. An online search mostly shows results of a musician from Chicago who is unrelated to the subject of the article in question. CycloneYoris 07:22, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Conquest of Sindan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Examining the sources The article appears to push a caste-POV rather than provide clear information about the military conflict. From John F. Richards' source, there is only a single line about the conflict, which is part of a larger table listing numerous minor conflicts. This brief mention does not reference Arabs, Abbasids, or Sindh; it simply notes that a commander named Bhoja expelled a Muslim garrison from a place called Sindan in 839. There is no mention of caste, Abbasids, or Arabs in this reference. The article's author cites Richards inaccurately (Richards didn't cover the area which the author cited).

The sources by H.C. Ray and Al-Baladhuri fall under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, and K.M. Munshi's "Glory That Was Gurjara Desa" praises the Gurjar caste without describing the conflict in depth or mentioning the Abbasids or Sindh province (not even the year). Likewise, R.C. Majumdar, Praful Kartha, and Hem Chandra Ray do not mention a conflict in Sindhan between the Abbasids and the Rajput confederacy. The assumption that the Muslims defeated by Bhoja in 839 were Abbasids and that Sindh was a Caliphal province is clearly original research and synthesis of sources.

None of the sections accurately describe the "conquest"; they discuss unrelated events, and the lack of in-depth coverage makes it clear that the article fails WP:GNG. Only about 5% of the article covers the respective event, and that is based on a single line by J.F. Richards. The author has created similar articles that contain original research and caste POV pushing. The context can be found in the article List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none of the listed conflicts in that article have enough notability to warrant a separate article. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial 07:16, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Think this fails WP:NLIST, tried to add sources for everything but found that difficult. Most of these I've just sourced to photos of the graves. Only mentions in news media are usually passing mentions in obits. Couldn't find any sources talking about them as a group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bhutala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources (WP:RS) mention a "Battle of Bhutala," nor do any of the references cited in the article. The article lacks notability, as even the authors Srivastav Ashoka and Somani Ram Vallabh are unsure about the year the battle occurred, and they cannot confirm if the leader was Iltutmish of the Delhi Sultanate. Neither the background nor the battle sections provide details about the events related to this alleged battle.

The battle section is a direct copy of a primary Indian inscription from Hamir Mada Mardan, dated to the 13th century and written by one of the participants, making it unreliable. The aftermath section is disorganized, failing to specify details about the war, belligerents, or aftermath. The article consists of WP:SYNTH and original research, with no reliable sources confirming the battle or its details. As such, the article fails the notability criteria. Imperial 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note to the closer:

Please review the background and edit history of the voters (whether they are for "keep" or "delete"). Articles related to Indian history, especially those concerning wars, battles, and sieges, are often sensitive and have been subject to active meatpuppetry for a long time. Kindly disregard comments from active POV pushers, as I discovered this article through the contributions of one.--Imperial 06:41, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Uruguayans in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Knowledge (XXG) is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:29, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 22:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Athanasios Tsakalidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Week keep There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).
  • Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:28, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Manzur Al Matin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article seems too frivolous and like a vanity page, in my opinion. More sources would need to be added for this to fully meet notability guidelines. CycloneYoris 06:23, 7 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 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 keep‎. Liz 00:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Maita Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Nothing that satisfies WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this article has been rewritten. Please review its current version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:32, 7 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 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 redirect‎ to French Montana discography#Mixtapes. Liz 03:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mac & Cheese 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have tried to find citations, but only came up with a blog review, which you will see in the article. The artist is well known, but this is a mixtape and not an album, without any proper coverage. Sharamoscar (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This list from HotNewHipHop mentions a few songs from this mixtape in detail, and this article from Complex has a dedicated section for it. It's not much, and probably not enough on its own, but it's a start and enough for me to abstain from voting. If I were to vote, however, I would suggest French Montana discography#Mixtapes as a redirect target rather than the artist's page itself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:10, 7 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 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 redirect‎ to Klikk#Releases. Liz 03:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Roopkathar Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Six episode web series cited only to unreliable sources or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Reference has no depth at all.
103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:50, 8 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 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 03:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The U P Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 02:54, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fiona Krautil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those wishing to insert or keep material. Here we have an article about a BLP subject, sourced to interviews, passing mentions, and user-generated content. Only keep assertions in this process so far appear as applicable as personal opinions. Burden is not met. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing useful. Fails ANYBIO, GNG, and AUTHOR. I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their source analysis. BusterD (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - head of government department is sufficient notability, in addition to the sources cited above should be sufficient to keep the article for now. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    There is no inherent notability with being head of a government department. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Discussion above has already challenged the sources. Can you rebut the analysis showing they do not qualify instead of just asserting they are sufficient? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    Uncited assertions of notability which are solely personal opinions aren't usually compelling. A lot of them have been made here. These opinions are neither sourced nor policy-based. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 11 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 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 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Base One (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:39, 7 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 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. Liz 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Social Sciences University of Ankara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete we have enough unreferenced AI translated garbage as it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. It's hard to make sense of how this page has evolved but there is clearly no consensus here yet on what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:25, 7 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 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 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 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Derbent (1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poorly written and relies heavily on unreliable, biased sources. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1 What makes you think the sources are unreliable and biased? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I have strong concerns that given that this was a battle that the british allegedly participated in, there are no british records of the event that I have been able to track down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı: It would be hard for me (and presumably others with poor Turkish) to check the sources. From your user name I assume your native language is Turkish. Perhaps if you wrote the article in Turkish Knowledge (XXG) and used the “alıntı” parameter to quote from the sources then readers would be able to check more easily whether it is correct. If you cannot do that then please at least specify the page numbers. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Sources not good enough - for example the map is described as Source Found in a Book Author Unknown author Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 11 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 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 Moot‎. Already redirected to 2009 Philippines men's FIBA Asia Championship team Star Mississippi 01:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Powerade-Team Pilipinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically just the Philippine men's national team playing under a corporate sponsor's name. See Articles for deletion/Gilas Pilipinas program.

The team did not play as a club (like in the case of its iteration as RP-Hapee Toothpaste in the PBA that would warrant a separate article for this as a quasi-ballclub. Its essentially just a labeled national team which only purely competed in national team tournaments as Powerade. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Audiofy bookchip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One news article does not justify an article. Possibly merge to Pimsleur Language Programs - there may be other mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Technology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources found that actually mention the bookchip other than mirrors and the already-cited NYT article. As for merging, I can't say if that would be the best thing to do or not because I don't have a NYT subscription and can't see how much coverage is given to Pimsleur and the bookchip. @PARAKANYAA: do you have access to that NYT article? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
    @Relativity You can cheat your way out of the NYT barrier for most articles. In any case it's about three paragraphs on audiofy. Reading it again though I don't think the company behind audiofy has anything to do with Pimsleur and they just happened to serve their product. So maybe just delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: when I wrote this article in 2008, it had a "technical details" section, which I hoped other editors would improve, but instead it just got removed as "original research" a decade later. I don't see much value in the rest of the article without it. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 06:48, 9 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 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 merge‎ to Rent regulation in New York. ✗plicit 00:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Illegal deregulation in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTESSAY with its argumentative, WP:NPOV tone and non-encyclopedic approach to its subject matter. As an example of WP:NOT, it thus fails part two of WP:GNG. The subject matter is already covered encyclopedically at Rent regulation in New York. (Note on history: this page was draftified as part of New Page Review to give the creator time to revise into an actual article, but the page creator objected to draftification so it has been restored to mainspace and nominated for deletion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge per Cameron Dewe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kissena Park sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. Individual sex crimes are very rarely long term notable, and this doesn't seem to have been mentioned past its initial period of a few days. In addition, no analytical coverage exists, there is nothing besides "event occurred", which is not useful for building an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is notable if it has enduring historical significance (it's WP:TOOSOON to tell about this one) or if it is covered widely (sources are mostly local) and re-analyzed afterward (again, too soon to tell). Furthermore, "outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." This event does not pass WP:NEVENTS (yet). I would be open to draftification as an alternative, but the page creator strongly objected to this outcome on a different article and said they would move it back into mainspace.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Forcible rape is a horrific and disgusting crime, without any doubt. In 2022, there were 133,294 forcible rapes reported in the US, which has only about 5% of the world's population. There have been countless millions of forcible rapes throughout history, every one a tragedy. As shocking as the details of this specific case seem to be, there is no evidence at this time that this particular case is so unusual and historically significant that it should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article. If this crime is the subject of in-depth analytical journalism or academic articles or reliable books or documentary films, then we can revisit the topic in the future. It is far too soon to come to that conclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Not every odious and reprehensible act is a notable odious and reprehensible act. If this specific assault case ends up having historical significance, it's a trivial task to undo this decision. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, let's see if the event has WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is yet another NYC crime article that seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Such crimes are quite common in NYC, and I don't think there is a WP:LASTING component to these crimes. Every single source in the article is a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source published during and just after the manhunt. Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify. This story already has coverage from reliable sources and is still ongoing. In the draftspace we can better assess its suitability for the mainspace. Svampesky (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: and SALT' not because of the issues around current article's creator, but because it has been a BLP nightmare. The case made global headlines in June 2024 as does every crime, still fails N:EVENT Star Mississippi 01:04, 12 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑