Knowledge (XXG)

:XfD today - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Knowledge (XXG), including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Purge server cache

IC 167 (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)

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects. SirMemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agam Manohar Pandit (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 biography of a businessman and former youth cricketer fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. There is no WP:SIGCOV of Pandit, only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of his participation on a team, and no WP:SIGCOV of his business career either. At best it's WP:BLP1E for the U-15 Cricket World Cup (but that's not even a valid redirect since there's no page on that competition), but even then he doesn't qualify for a standalone page. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sonmati (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 sources to verify this information Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Little Caesars Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Stated inclusion criteria does not match title. mikeblas (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Daon, Inc. (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 to meet WP:NCORP. Sources are all trivial mentions of the company. Brandon (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I haven't yet completed a full WP:BEFORE (to establish whether there are other/independent/reliable sources "out there" which can establish notability and support the text). But, per nom, the sources within the article are far from ideal. Being either trivial passing mentions (where the industry news coverage is substantially about something else and the subject org is barely mentioned in passing). Or sources which are far from independent (company press releases, promotional webpages from partner companies, interviews with the company CEO, etc). To establish notability of this (250 person? 11 million turnover?) company... Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have now undertaken a more complete WP:BEFORE. And have identified and added more than a few examples of independent, reliable and verifiable news sources. Including the Irish Times, Irish Independent and New York Times. The latter two dealing with the 2006 appointment of Tom Ridge and sales wins (around the same time) in US airport security use cases. While, at time of nom, the article was almost entirely based on primary sources, press releases and ROTM business news coverage, that is no longer the case. Guliolopez (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kadono Jūkurō (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)

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and content is just very limited CV/Resume type material. Regarding potential SNG, his largets thing was being Chairman of the Okura Gumi corporation. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (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)

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle, additionally no fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. A total loss of an aircraft is a significant event and I don't think accident articles need to be deleted just because there were no fatalities. Many aircraft accidents have a "fairly short news cycle" and once a final investigation report has been issued, they usually disappear altogether. Articles about aircraft accidents are useful as they elucidate what the causes were. This one could easily have ended with hundreds dead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment while i do support some of your causes, just because it could've left hundreds dead doesnt mean it should justify as an article. At the least this should be merged, near tragedy doesnt warrant nor neccesitate an article, the accident is just a simple hull loss wrapped into a near tragedy. Thanks for your time. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I fully understand the pertinence of not imagining what coulda, woulda, shoulda happened. But the improvement of aviation safety relies on the investigation and analysis of all accidents and incidents. I realise Knowledge (XXG) is not an aircraft safety site, but I wanted to explain my perspective here. I'm not sure how this article could be successfully merged without losing a lot of relevant info. Let's see what other editors say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant accident that resulted in a hull loss and injuries, not a simple runway overrun. SignorPignolini (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4 of the event criteria, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance. There is no continued nor in-depth coverage since news coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what the Civil Aviation Authority of Iran wrote in its final report. None of the sources are secondary, in nature, since none of them contain "analysis, evaluation or interpretation", with the sources being primary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Moon Kim (poker player) (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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yellow Line (New York) (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)

Originally a redirect to BMT Broadway Line, this page got turned into an incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) listing two more New Yorker yellow lines that neither mention "yellow" in the article body nor are listed on the Yellow Line dab page (i.e. unlikely search target?). Since INCDAB pages aren't ideal, I see the following solutions for this particular page:

  1. Upmerge all entries to Yellow Line and redirect to Yellow Line {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
  2. Redirect back to the original BMT Broadway Line target, maybe add hatnotes
  3. Delete to avoid confusion over dab-worthiness
  4. Keep and accept this INCDAB

Whatever the result, I'd do the same for the 6 other NY color line INCDABs (not part of this AFD). – sgeureka 14:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

ETA: Page/Redirect were originally created by now-blocked editor, see Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive357#Dozens_upon_dozens_of_questionable_redirects_created_by_now-blocked_user. – sgeureka 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Esraa Owis (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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep, many sources exist under her Arabic name "اسراء عويس". Multiple-time major international championship gold medallist so clearly meets WP:NATH. I added the first two to the article. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that it could be difficult to find sources in English language media. She may be notable as an Arab woman athlete winning medals in African championships and qualifying for the Summer Olympics. Nnev66 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, has sources and the nomination does not indicate that any effort was put behind it. I.e. effort might have been put behind it, but it isn't shown. Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search in Arabic on Arabic news sites only returned routine, trivial event announcements (e.g. 0–3-sentence lightly-refactored boilerplate text announcing results 123456). Nothing approaching the in-depth secondary independent commentary required to be cited in all sportsperson articles. There is explicitly no carve-out for athletes that allows us to assume IRS SIGCOV exists when no such sources have been identified. The whole point of SPORTCRIT #5 is to ensure that athlete bios are not based on achievements or participation, as those criteria were deprecated by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay, thanks for doing the research and finding those sources. I think that if we combine the paragraphs to establish notability (which is allowed per WP:NBASIC), we have a good case to be made here. The consensus you're referring to established by WP:NSPORTS2022 actually supports keeping this article, because it says to keep sports notability criteria as long as it's not participation based (i.e. simply attending a meet). But in Owis' case, she has won multiple major international medals which goes beyond simply participating. I think you are conflating achievements with participation. --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    NSPORTS2022 established global consensus that, regardless of achievements and regardless of meeting a sport-specific guideline, all athletes must cite a source with IRS SIGCOV. Trivial and routine coverage does not establish notability, and that is the extent of what can be found on this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay, thanks, the NSPORTS2022 closure actually does not say anything about IRS, and it in fact says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support. At the time that statement was made, this is what NSPORTS looked like: Special:Diff/1076787937.
    Regardless, if we combine the found articles from multiple independent organizations (not just the Koora sources) we can certainly say the coverage is significant in this case fulfilling WP:SPORTCRIT prong #5. Coverage about a hometown athlete qualifying for the Olympics is not routine -- there are strict qualifying standards and there is no guarantee or schedule of such an event occurring. --Habst (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    That sentence is in the context of deprecating NSPORT entirely, it is obviously not stating that NSPORT as it was is supported in toto. SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source providing significant coverage, it does not say "a combination of sources adding up to SIGCOV". And I've literally never seen anyone attempt the argument that this clause doesn't require the SIGCOV to be IRS. Coverage of people in non-routine events can absolutely still be routine. NOTNEWS does not limit this in any way. What has been found so far is not even personalized "hometown coverage", it's churnalized results announcements with no more than three boilerplate sentences apiece originating from the same news source. That is not GNG and is not even an indication of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay, yes the sentence argues for the opposite of deprecating NSPORT -- it says to keep it in place, which it currently is. SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for, however it's important to note that has no bearing on whether or not WP:NATH is fulfilled (which it clearly is in this case via criterion 2, multiple gold medals at major competitions).
    Using a search for "اسراء عويس", I see four different news stories on just the first page of Google results (Paris Olympics - Israa Owais finishes her competitions in the qualifiers, Who is Israa Awis? | Profile, The Pharaohs in Paris.. Israa Owais bids farewell to the Olympic Games competitions, Israa Owais, the track and field athlete, officially qualifies for the Olympics). If you consider all of these "churnalism", then surely the series of at least three in-person interview clips conducted by ONTime Sports ( ) would count as sufficiently journalistic sources? One of them looks to be a 26-minute news segment all about the subject.
    There are more on page 2: Egypt's champion Israa Owais, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon in athletics at the..., After 3 successful attempts, jumper Israa Awis fails in..., Israa Owais wins gold in long jump at Arab Games, “A golden heroine”... Israa Owais, the owner of historical achievements in, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon at Arab Games, Israa Awis, Israa Owais after saying goodbye to the Olympics: Enough negative talk, it's making me nervous, Israa Owais ranks 15th in the long jump competition, Sports News: Israa Owais bids farewell to the Games in.... These are all from different sources.
    There's also a 30-minute TV interview with her here from Al Ahly TV: Full interview | Israa Owais.. Al-Ahly player and Egypt national team star
    This is all just in the first 2 pages of results. I really don't think there's a question that the notability guideline is met, it's just that the sources are mostly in Arabic so we'll need to translate them for inclusion in the article. Honestly, I have yet to find a recent Olympian in athletics who doesn't meet the bar with some digging; the Olympics still have significant cultural purchase and athletics is the marquee sport so typically if someone qualifies, the coverage is there. --Habst (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for This is absolutely not true. There is no logical reading of at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage that supports your claim that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can constitute "a source providing SIGCOV". The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence.You are refbombing more routine trivial announcementsd. No number of functionally identical three-sentence results updates can amount to SIGCOV. 1: Israa Awis ended her competitions in the high jump qualifiers without qualifying for the final stage. Israa Owais is participating in the Olympics for the first time in her career. Israa Awis achieved a record of 6.20 metres after three successful attempts. This is on a site with no evidence of editorial control, attributed to someone with only two articles total, and identical to pieces on other sites that each also claim a byline. 2: This is a trash webscraper/UGS. 3: Israa Owais, the national team player and strongman, bid farewell to the long jump competitions, within the Olympic Games competitions hosted by Paris. Israa managed to jump to a height of 6.20 meters, coming in fifteenth place in the first group. Essentially the same announcement as 1. 4: This is the same 3-sentence article I linked earlier. 5: This is literally just a picture of her on a government website (not independent, not SIGCOV).In-person interviews are primary and non-independent. Per policy: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews,Al Ahly TV is her own sports organization, so that interview obviously fails as primary and non-independent in multiple ways.If this is the extent of the coverage you're finding on her, then we are severely lacking in anything approaching SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay, thanks for your response.
    Re: paragraph 1, The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople -- Can you please link to the not-vote where this happened? From my read this isn't what happened in NSPORTS2022. Reading WP:NSPORTS2022, NBASIC is only mentioned once and it's not in the context of overriding it. They are separate policies and broad over-arching guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC still apply even where more subject-specific guidelines exist.
    Re: WP:REFBOMBing -- As an English speaker, I simply can't read all of the sources I am finding in Arabic, so I pasted the plausible ones here so that someone who does speak Arabic can look them over. Also, WP:REFBOMB only refers to putting unnecessary citations in an article. There's nothing wrong with linking many sources in an AfD discussion. In fact, I think they should all be addressed -- I see you left comments on five of the sources, but there are still 13 on just the first two pages of results that need to be looked at.
    Re: In-person interviews are primary and non-independent -- This simply isn't supported by Knowledge (XXG) policy. I recently had a discussion about an unrelated article with an admin just this week about this, and this is what they said this week at Special:Diff/1245933378:
    I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there.
    The quote that you're citing and have cited in past discussions is not directly from any Knowledge (XXG) policy, but is from a sub-bullet of a footnote of a section of WP:PRIMARY. The word "interview" is in fact never mentioned in the Knowledge (XXG)-voice text on that page other than to say that interviews depend on context. So, taking context into consideration, what can we say about the 26-minute ONTime Sports news segment (plus various clips) and the 30-minute Al Ahly TV news segment, both of which seem to be solely about Owis?
    Quoting the admin comment on this issue, Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? We would expect post-match interviews to be only five or six minutes and only focusing on the game -- instead, these interviews are much longer and were conducted in what seems to be an in-studio news segment setting. I want to emphasize clearly that we need the assistance of an Arabic speaker to say much more, but it seems like a lot exists here for Arabic speakers.
    I think the pieces for meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG have been presented. Can you explain why all 15 sources are "severely lacking"? --Habst (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    You found one closer who holds the idiosyncratic opinion that interviews can somehow count towards GNG based on "the fact that they chose to interview them" rather than anything about the interview content being IRS SIGCOV. But you can't just claim that their close reflects any sort of consensus or even suggests broader disagreement while simultaneously ignoring the far more prevalent examples of closes supporting the view that only the secondary, independent material in an interview may count toward GNG. How could content that someone says about themselves ever be secondary and independent, anyway? And I know you're aware of these examples since I've linked them to you in the past, so why are you only now accepting admin AfD judgments as evidence of consensus? 1: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. 2: admin nom statement This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. 3: admin nom: There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. 4: The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. 5: The "keeps" are largely based on the slew of references provided early on in the discussion; however, nobody arguing to keep has presented evidence here as to how these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. 6: admin nom: referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all.The WP:OR treatment of interviews is still policy. Just because specific examples of primary sources are listed in the footnotes does not mean they "aren't policy".It is absolutely acceptable to characterize someone's behavior at AfD as "refbombing". It is breathtakingly entitled for you to dump a bunch of sources that you haven't even read and insist that other editors must prove each of them to be insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay, thanks for finding these links.
    I was actually having an unrelated discussion with the administrator when they opined on interviews unprompted -- I wasn't looking to find a point of view one way or the other and I'm trying to enter discussions with an open mind. It seems intuitive to me that if a reputable news organization conducts a long-form interview, that speaks to the notability of the subject, and I haven't been able to find any Knowledge (XXG) policy contradicting that practice here.
    I am still curious about the justification for discounting interviews. The only mention you cited earlier, in WP:PRIMARY, doesn't mention interviews in the policy text, and the only mention in a footnote says, other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews as examples of what could be a primary source. Surely a lengthy news segment interview on a subject would fall under "depending on context" and could be used to establish notability? Also, the way the footnote is written, it makes it seem like only opinion-piece interviews are discussed and not news interviews.
    Looking at the links, 1) doesn't contain any news interviews, 2) only comments that the particular interviews used were primary and does not make a sweeping claim about all interviews, 3) doesn't seem to contain any news interviews but instead promotional interviews for his books (?), 4) makes no comment about interviews in general, 5) actually says interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content which I think should be met in this case, and 6) only speaks to specific "Q&A interviews" but not news interviews nor interviews in general.
    Re: Refbombing, I don't think it's productive to say that other editors are providing too many citations in AfD discussions where the point of the discussion is to evaluate sources. I plan on making a best effort at translation, but the reason why I linked and will continue to link sources in AfDs without being excessive is to see what the community thinks about them even if neither of us can read Arabic natively. I greatly respect your encyclopedic contributions and hope you can extend the same respect to me and can refrain from making personal comments.
    Acknowledging that "interviews may count towards GNG" if conditions are met, can we discuss the substance of the news interviews found so far, or if not them, then the other undiscussed sources linked? --Habst (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    No comment on this specific case, but in response to your claim: is absolutely not true ... The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence. – No, the community absolutely did not !vote to override the notability guideline for people, as said by the user who established SPORTCRIT in the first place: this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography ... SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The sources added by Habst appear to be good enough (via reading a rough translation) for meeting the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Let'srun, the first link has three brief sentences announcing her event results. That is routine news coverage on its own, but it's also clearly lacking in any secondary analysis as the specifics are just substituted into the boilerplate announcements put out by Kooora and Kas News for every athlete at every competition. You can look at the links I provided to see the identical formatting, and also compare to the contemporaneous announcements put out for others in her cohort. They are pure fluff.Kooora:
    Israa Owais, the Egyptian track and field player, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria. Israa Owais succeeded in winning the gold medal after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held on Tuesday evening in the Algerian city of Oran.Kooora:
    Mostafa Amr, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the shot put competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria from July 5 to 15. Amr succeeded in winning the gold medal at the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 20.52 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria. Run-of-the-mill sports announcements are not enough to demonstrate notability, and athletes are required to have a source of IRS SIGCOV cited in the article. A 3-sentence blurb that contains nothing beyond the results of an event is certainly not enough to meet SPORTSCRIT. The second piece is by the same news agency as the first (the Kooora piece is functionally identical to a Kas News piece) and so these definitely don't even constitute "multiple" sources of coverage.Kas News:
    Israa Owais, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games currently being held in Algeria. Israa Awis succeeded in winning the gold medal in the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.Per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coveragePer WP:N: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Have none of the keep !voters actually read any of the proposed sources...? JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Shekar Natarajan (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)

Promo article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are mostly interviews and profiles. No indication of being notable. scope_creep 07:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is so many citations on his work in this article and he is well known in the world of Supply Chain. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=M1dROmoAAAAJ&hl=en 75.149.50.222 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to address the concerns regarding the notability and reliability of the references in this article.
Notability and Achievements:
Shekar Natarajan is a recognized expert in the field of supply chain management. His contributions to the industry have been significant, as evidenced by his receipt of the Medallion Award from the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) in 2010, which is awarded for notable contributions to the field. It was awarded to only 10 people over the last decade. This award recognizes individuals that have made a notable impact on the industrial engineering profession. The full list of awardees, including Mr. Natarajan, can be viewed here - https://www.iise.org/awards.aspx?id=10802.
Reliable Sources:
In addition to the IISE recognition, Mr. Natarajan has been acknowledged by various reputable industry sources. For example, Material Handling and Logistics News has recognized him as an expert in supply chain logistics. More details about his work and expertise can be found in their coverage here - https://www.mhlnews.com/shekar-natarajan-expert.
Given these points, I believe Mr. Natarajan's notability is well-established within his field, supported by reliable third-party sources.
Thank you for considering these points. 75.149.50.222 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Shekar Natarajan has received several prestigious awards and recognitions throughout his career, acknowledging his significant contributions to the supply chain and logistics industry.* Medallion Award (2010): Awarded by the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), recognizing his contributions to the field of industrial engineering and systems.
  • DC Velocity Rainmaker (Year): Named as one of the "Rainmakers" by DC Velocity magazine, which highlights professionals who have made substantial impacts in the logistics and supply chain field. Source.
  • Consumer Goods Visionary (2010): Recognized as a visionary by Consumer Goods magazine for his forward-thinking strategies in the consumer goods industry. Source.Given the multiple awards and recognitions that Shekar Natarajan has received, it is clear that he has made a noteworthy impact in his industry. Deleting this article would mean removing valuable information about a recognized leader in supply chain management, whose work continues to influence the field. This article serves as a credible and informative resource for those interested in learning about influential figures in the industry.


2601:644:9385:FB0:542B:A7A2:4997:3559 (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs to see more participation. Looking at the comments thus far, it seems like this subject might have won some prestigious industry awards. Notable awards go beyond the Oscars and Nobels, by the way. A source review would also be helpful here as this is a heavily referenced article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Parts of the article look promotional but can be cleaned up, but that does not mean that the subject is not notable. Clearly meets WP:BIO, with copious citations all over the web (WP:SIGCOV). Also search for Chandrashekar Natarajan. Plenty of Google Scholar contributions.
Some awards and sentences about him being a "thought leader" can be trimmed since I believe they're too promotional, but the sources clearly demonstrate that this is a notable Fortune 500 company executive. Natarajan is covered by the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, New York Times, Harvard Business Review, and many other top-tier sources that can also be included.
Copyediting needed? Yes. But notability fail? Definitely not. I'd recommend keeping and then cleaning up. Nyangaman4 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No. On the Google Scholar citation list , only one paper is above 100 cites which means that record of achievement is invalid. Too low a h-index/citation count to count towards WP:NACADEMIC. Being contracted or having worked at place isn't inherently notable. Only coverage denotes notability and its not here. We will look at the references today. scope_creep 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could not find any WP:SIGCOV piece on this person in a quality independent national RS, a zero in an international one. His awards are not notable and "working for" major US corporations in a local country is also not notable. Article is very WP:PROMO and written like his resume. Getting into WP:G11 territory but regardless, no evidence of notability on any basis. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: This is the best article, but it's penned by this person , unfortunately. There just isn't enough about this fellow to show notability here. Brief mentions in the few sources used in the article that are RS aren't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have just removed promotional resume-like content and puffery. This article has been up since 2010, but it appears that different people have been inserting promotional content over time. But that does not mean this person is not notable. If cleaned up, it will meet Knowledge (XXG) criteria and can be kept. Nyangaman4 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    I could not find a single piece of WP:SIGCOV on this person in any quality Indian RS. This was probably a WP:UPE case that should never have been a BLP, but somehow it survived. 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm normally opposed to having a third relisting, but we may need time to consider changes that removed some self-promo content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Beckley (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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Coach Trip series 8 (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)

Has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade. No objection if anyone merges it to Coach trip but it does not seem notable enough to deserve its own article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete Knowledge (XXG):NOTDATABASE An endless list of nothing. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep for technical merrits. Either all CT series should be deleted, or (preferably) all should be merged into a kind of episode list. There's no point in singling this page out. – sgeureka 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Refugee lens investing (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Khoan Soben (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 WP:SIGCOV for this Cambodian footballer; result is the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kong Lyhour (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 WP:SIGCOV to be found for this footballer; fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

ALAIZ collective (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 about a music production collective, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that they and artists they have worked with exist, which is not automatically notable enough to guarantee a Knowledge (XXG) article in and of itself -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources and glancing namechecks of ALAIZ in coverage of the individual artists, with little to no evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about ALAIZ in its own right.
The article was, further, heavily weighed down with entirely inappropriate offsite links to the self-published webpages of individual artists named in the body text, as well as quoteboxes highlighting cherry-picked promotional quotes for PR purposes, all of which I've already had to remove as WP:ELNO violations.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better sourcing for it than has been provided. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Flirtini (app) (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 appears to be an advertisement for the app and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Elisa Hategan (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 self-promoting vanity page for a marginal figure, who is obviously continually editing it. There is a very long history of edit wars on the article, including their attempts to prevent coverage of their legal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)

This nomination for deletion is part of ongoing vandalism of this page, which resulted it being locked down for a year. The nomination comes from one particular editor whose history shows he has targeted this particular page to delete large swaths of sourced content. His edit history also shows that he has targeted this page multiple times, contributing nothing but deleting large sections due to personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna2024 (talk • contribs)

The account that has been repeatedly undoing revisions to this page is now deleting the nomination for deletion without adequate discussion among editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The account that keeps sabotaging this page (TrashPandaMan) and deleting huge segments without adding anything to it, is now aggressively vandalizing the page and repeatedly nominating it for deletion. His history of edits shows he has targeted two specific pages, this one and another page, and repeatedly vandalizing and nominating them for deletion, citing only his personal opinion that it should be deleted. Belladonna2024 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Socialist Party (India) (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 strongly doubt "Indian political parties named Socialist Party" is a notable list topic per WP:NLIST. I propose turning this article into a disambiguation page. Sourced claims that are present here should be moved to applicable articles. Janhrach (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Akhmed Yakoob (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 or WP:NPOL, candidacy doesn't count towards NPOL, by the way, they have to be elected to the office. For GNG, the sources used are routine coverages of the racism incident, etc. No WP:SIGCOV can be identified. One of the BBC source even does not have a byline, while you might thing it's almighty BBC, but sorry, we can not rely on a news piece that lacks a byline, whether from an international news org or a local one. A WP:BEFORE was done and the nature of the sources found there does not help, they either routine coverages or run of the mill. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (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:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Alejandro Otero Lárez (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 that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4 (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)

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

IMOCA 60 Maitre Coq 5 (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)

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
FunTrivia (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 like this site, and have used it for a while, but it unfortunately fails WP:GNG, all sources are self-published. The archived Yahoo source is merely a list of similar trivia websites. Sekundenlang (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

2014 AC Nagano Parceiro season (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. Severe lack of sources and content. The only reference is from a primary source. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. EpicAdventurer (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Creator is globally locked. The page is not great, but is a part of a series of 2014 J3-League club seasons. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I agree, it’s part of an entire series of articles for the different Japanese football leagues which not only tracks the competitions year by year, but the teams too. Cutting out a single article in the series seems like it would break up the series for no good reason, when the information itself is super clearly presented, and threaded, in a way I haven’t been able to find anywhere else online.
    In my opinion deleting it would take away something useful. For that reason, I have the page a solid edit tonight. I’ve still got to go ahead and add match report links to each individual game, but I think I at least covered the basics.
    This is such a useful resource that I’m going to make it a mission to pick through all the rest of the articles in the series one by one, and expand / source each of those as well. So it would be really nice if you didn’t delete this one article as I’m doing that…
    Vote to keep. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Sorry, new to this, didn’t realise I should have made a * and bolded my keep recommendation until I reread the guide again just now. Mea Culpa.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Lakana (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)

Lakana presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe) with a specific type of rig (the "downwind" mastless rig that is supported between two sprits). This specific type of craft does exist – it is shown in the photo illustrating the article. However, in Malagasy, as far as I can determine, the word "Lakana" is any type of canoe, with or without outriggers, with or without a sailing rig, and certainly not confined to just one type of sailing rig. This is clear from the reference in the article
Hornell, James (1920). "67. The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa". Man. 20: 134–139. doi:10.2307/2839454. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
which has a translation provided by a colonial administrator confirming that "lakana" is not a specific type of canoe, but a canoe (or boat) in general. Hornell is still seen as a useful authority on the ethnography of sailing craft in the areas in which he worked. If the word applied to a particular hull and rig combination, he would have picked up on this.

I have asked for help on the Wikiproject Madagascar with no result. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that these concerns about the article are correct. If "lakana" is a much broader term than the article suggests, if we do not the name of the type of craft that the article describes (I can find no source that makes this clear), then the only option is to delete the article as unsupported by sources.

In passing, it is worth saying that I have come to the conclusion that though the subject of traditional sailing craft in Madagascar would make a very interesting (to me) article on Knowledge (XXG), there simply are not sufficient sources to do the subject justice. This is after some considerable searching. (It would be great to be proved wrong in this.) ThoughtIdRetired TIR 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. In terms of:
  • Scope. To my read, the article doesn't state (at least not directly as interpreted by the nominator) that the article "presents this term as representing a specific type of watercraft (an outrigger canoe ) with a specific type of rig". Rather it states (as would appear to be supported by Hornell (1920; p.138) and Richardson (1887; p.345)) that the Lakana is (yes) a specific type of watercraft. Being an outrigger canoe. That is "dug out". Rather than "built". IE: A "specific type of watercraft (a dugout outrigger canoe )". Which is supported by Richardson in particular. Yes, the article mentions different types of rigging. But I don't read it as stating that the rigging type is part of the definition/classification. If that is unclear, I would suggest that we clarify or change the text. Rather than delete the article.
  • Sources. To my mind, there are sufficient sources (including the two above) to support some text about the subject. Being a type of dugout outrigger traditionally used in Madagascar. Even if just as a sub-set / sub-section of the Pirogue article. Which appears to cover the "generic" class of small dugout canoe. Globally. With a redirect left behind. To a subsection on the Madagascan type.
  • Suggested action. If the issues with the title are scope (including clarity of the text) or sources (reflecting them), I'm not sure that outright deletion is the right way to go. Deletion isn't cleanup. At the very least, a merge/redirect seems like the way to go. To Pirogue. Leaving out any "questionable" or potentially confusing text.
My 2x cents at any rate. Guliolopez (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment.
  • Translation: The key issue is whether Lakana is a term for "outrigger canoes which are based on a dugout hull" or if it applies to "any dugout canoe". The two sources discussed above seem to give the definition of an unqualified "dugout canoe". At present the article is solely about the outrigger version. To assist in decision-making on the meaning, see this video with the caption "Miandry ny lakana miampita" which google translates as "The boat is waiting to cross". We can see there is no outrigger. (Whilst OR is not allowed for article content, there is no prohibition on using it to help understand a subject.) The boat in the video is very different from the seagoing outrigger canoes.
  • What makes this more difficult is the knowledge that the Vezo make use of outrigger canoes with a distinctive common spritsail rig (as defined by Edwin Doran , pg 40, fig 21, drawing B) that is not described, in Madagascar, by Hornell or anyone else. (Hornell describes this rig in the neighbouring Comoro Islands) A Vezo boat is the one illustrating the Pirogue article – but there is no RS that identifies the rig type. And, of course, Commons has no obligation for its descriptions of pictures to be supported by an RS. This might contribute to the impetus for deletion in this editor's mind (as proposer), as there is a very common class of Madagascan dugout outrigger canoe that is totally undescribed in RSs, so making the subject incomplete. (See youtube for these Vezo craft under sail, which is something that most believe Hornell never saw). All I have to back this thought up is some private correspondence with a researcher on Austronesian rigs – so essentially WP:OR.
  • If I understand User:Guliolopez correctly, their suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue. That would fit with the intent behind the proposal: that we do not really have enough sourced material for an article on the Lakana on its own. Have I got this correct? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Reply. Hi ThoughtIdRetired. RE: "suggestion would mean a complete rewrite of the article to fit the sources and then merge it into Pirogue". Effectively, yes, I think that's probably the most appropriate outcome. Retain the title. As a redirect. And summarise and merge the content/text (about the Lakana being a form of Pirogue/dugout traditionally associated with Madagascar) into the Pirogue article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Note: prior to the AfD nomination, I had suggested to the nominator that they put this up for deletion.) My take on the current sources etc. is that none of them indicate that the lakana is anything other than the Malagasy for a canoe. My interpretation of each source etc. below:
    • "The lateen rig allows a lakana to sail closer to the wind, so giving some windward performance.”
      • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
    • "The boat is often referred to by the general French term "pirogue", which can include boats with no outriggers."
      • My interpretation: “general French term” suggests there's nothing special about the lakana.
    • “The technology was adapted in neighboring East Africa, like the Tanzanian ngalawa and the Fulani laana.”
      • My interpretation: Can't access these sources, but the Knowledge (XXG) wording suggests that there are similar craft elsewhere - i.e. there's nothing peculiar to Madagascar about these.
    • “some locals prefer the Hazomalany wood (Hazomalania voyronii of the family of Hernandiaceae).”
      • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
    • Hornell, James (September 1920). “The Common Origin of the Outrigger Canoes of Madagascar and East Africa”
      • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
    • Richardson, J (December 1887). “The Affinities Of Malagasy With The Melanesian Languages”
      • My interpretation: Only indicates that “lakana” is simply the Malagasy for “canoe”.
    • “An Austronesian square-sail is more common (e.g. in Ambaro Bay).”
      • My interpretation: Doesn't indicate that the lakana is something different.
--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Saquib Rizvi Memorial Marathon (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)

Can't find anything to suggest notability; alsost all hits are facebook or YouTube &c. TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Varrio 204th Street (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)

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Zulfikar Hirji (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)

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPROF. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge (XXG) articles just because they exist, and have to show proper sourcing establishing that they surpass certain specific notability criteria -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published website and his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer and his own writing metasourcing its own existence, rather than any third-party validation of his significance in sources independent of himself.
There are further WP:COPYRIGHT issues here, as every book in his "selected works" isn't just "title + ISBN", but contains an extended advertorial spiel copied and pasted verbatim from its promotional page on the website of its own publisher.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bob Eaves (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)

Lack of independant notabilityWP:notinherited. Redirect to wife? TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Thanks for the heads up! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
He also launched the Students@Work educational program for middle school students in North Carolina and Carolina Helping Heroes for military spouses. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Lori Lewis (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)

Based largely on WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources such as blogs and social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A suitable WP:ATD would be a redirect to Therion (band). 4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Olivia Raney (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. Her husband established a library in her honor after she died suddenly. That's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kristína Košíková (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 cannot find any evidence of notability for this Slovak women's footballer. The only secondary source I found is an interview, but nothing else to pass WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Cluer (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)

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
IMDB Sebastian Cluer for further validation Cliuthar (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
That's fine, but we need sources about him. Simply being named in a list of nominees isn't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    But there isn't any sourcing to be found. I agree he's notable, but having a permastub for lack of sourcing isn't what we look for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    "Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Knowledge (XXG) article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up . An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

BEC Recordings (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 has been deleted and restored unilaterally by other editors due to debate over notability. While I believe the label is notable, I have not been able to find sourcing to support this assertion. Brining here to gain consensus on deletion or retention. glman (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Tooth & Nail Records, which I did as an WP:ATD. It wasn't deleted. Record labels are a company. Not a band and falls under WP:NCORP, not WP:NMUSIC and this label is unable to meet NCORP level of notability. Graywalls (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Kira Hagi (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)

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash (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:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge into and create Dassault Falcon 10 Accidents and incidents category. Lolzer3k 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
List of Fawlty Towers cast members (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)

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every actor who has ever been in an episode of a TV series is not encyclopedic content. --woodensuperman 11:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Retroactive overtime (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 and is only sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, without any secondary sourcing whatsoever. What's left is original research. It's impossible to even WP:ATD because there is nothing to merge at all, making it surprising how it lasted for so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Karmaanya (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:NFILM, references cited confirm that principal photography hasn't begun yet, so the film may never see the light of day. All I could find online in English and Hindi (कर्माण्य) was WP:NEWSORGINDIA announcements about a teaser (currently CGI and a single actor) and a poster. Prodded once, moved to draft, declined there for notability. Wikishovel (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of SABR regional chapters (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 evidence of any notability for this list as a group. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Further note from creator: the purpose of the list is to serve as a WP:CFORK for the main article Society for American Baseball Research. So I don't see a problem here. If not kept, however, then at least merge back with main article rather than outright delete. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Please see Knowledge (XXG):Content_forks#List formats, point 4. A list content fork like this one is only acceptable if there are no notability issues. Fram (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Fram, just giving the reason why I created the page in the first place so users voting have the full picture. There are numerous chapter lists of fraternities and societies and I see this as similar to that. And I also don't want information I transfered from that page and expanded to be lost so this should be merged back to the main article if not kept as a seperate article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Turkish football clubs in European competitions 1990–1999 (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:NOTSTATS applies. Article contains no prose/context, no references, and no relevant external links. It's just pure statistics, and adds no value. Useful information that is better contextualized is already available at Turkish football clubs in European competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese football in 2006–07 UEFA competitions (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)

Content should be merged to 2006–07 in Portuguese football, not notable as its own topic. No other similar articles in this variety exist. WP:NOTSTATS also applies. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mollenkopf (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 small office supply company. All the references about it are press release wire stuff and ultra-low-value business churnalism. I can't find any significant coverage of it in any reliable source. I don't think this company passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at all. A PROD on this basis was removed in 2013. There isn't a DE.wikipedia article about it; I don't think there ever has been. Note that there are a couple of other German companies with Mollenkopf in their name, but they're unrelated companies in different markets. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

SecurityScorecard (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 recreated recently after Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/SecurityScorecard, notability of the company has not meaningfully changed since.

The new version of the article does have more references, however there is still not significant coverage of the company. The Bloomberg article is the most persuasive, however a company closing one significant deal does not clear the WP:NCORP bar. The remaining mentions are all trivial. Brandon (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes No No Trivial mention of SecureScorecard as an example of a streaming data pipeline Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Maundrill, Beth (2023-12-01). "How TUI Group Strengthened its Third-Party Risk Management". Infosecurity Magazine.
 Yes No No No Customer testimonial
Pasternack, Alex (March 3, 2023). "10 Most Innovative Companies in Security of 2023". Fast Company.
 Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" Yes
Gallagher, Sean (2015-09-11). "MIT ranks high in bad security at major universities". Ars Technica.
 Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of MIT, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of the US government, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Delete per nom. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bloomberg, Fastcompany, Atstechnica, and CyberExpress together are good enough for me. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    • The sources almost exclusively only provide trivial coverage of the company, I've added a source assessment table to demonstrate this. For example, the Fast Company article is a textbook example of WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists." Brandon (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment as article's AfC reviewer. I am withdrawing my decision, and keeping this open to others' input. While I originally thought this might have been a pretty good article, I understand the other viewpoints. I give partial support to remove this article per WP:ORGTRIV, which I think is a viable reason. OnlyNano 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Keep - The company is covered in tons of sources and even several pages of books if you search on Google. The venture beat articles look like funding notices but the articles are quite in depth and I think Bloomberg along with plenty of sources online make this a very notable company. SunnyScion (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln cent mintage figures (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 evidence of any notability for this WP:NOTSTATS list, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also nominated:

United States cent mintage figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Rusty Shoop (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 dime-a-dozen TV weatherman article, with hardly any content since its 2008 creation that fails to establish why subject is notable. Sources before and after death are primary, with no viable third-party coverage. 💥Casualty 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Golden 1 Center (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Significant referencing problems. mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Olimpiyskiy Stadium (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No inclusion criteria, very weak referencing. mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at AsiaWorld–Expo (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Liverpool Arena (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Movistar Arena (Buenos Aires) (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Contains only events since the end of 2019, only concerts. Completely unreferenced. mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Central Harbourfront Event Space (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly defined inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at Civic Arena (Pittsburgh, PA) (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weakly defined inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the list notable as a group? There are other arenas of similar size listed that have similar lists https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Lists_of_events_by_venue Jasonstru (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Toyota Center (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yonas Maynas (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 reliable article per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Cai Haojian (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 and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of minutes in the Chinese Super League, as well as a loan in the third league. Sources are WP:ROUTINE and I don't see anything else that can help it pass. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kang Dong-gu (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 and WP:SPORTCRIT. Short career in the K-league, some games in semi-pro lower divisions. Geschichte (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahn Seok-ho (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 meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, tagged as BLP lacking sources for 15 years. PROD has been tried before. Geschichte (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Evelina Bertoli (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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Grorp are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Dealing with Italian-only articles has been difficult, but I was able to find out some more information which I added to the article. From what I was able to find and understand, I would say that Bertoli likely meets notability standards regardless of my amateur attempts at rummaging through Italian articles. Still probably rated as a stub-level article, it is much improved over the version that was AfD'd.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review changes to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jennie (dog) (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 inherently notable, happy to merge with Steve Darling. Bringing to AFD as I'm not sure if I'm missing something that makes this notable enough for it's own article. Lordseriouspig 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)


"She is not the first guide dog to serve in Westminster, as House of Lords members Baron Blunkett and Baron Holmes of Richmond also use guide dogs in the chamber."

where is the wiki page for themTravelrisk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agreed with the above that there is nothing to show that she has any notability of her own, independent of her owner, and as all of the main points are covered already in Steve Darling's article, there is no need for a merge. I have no objections to having it Redirect to Steve Darling as well, if others think that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without more support for Keep, the options here are Deletion or Merger. Let's give this discussion a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Michael Ruane (poker player) (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:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Kristian P. Lusardi (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:SPORTCRIT or WP:CRIMINAL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Clapton Kibonge (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 G4. Article was previously deleted under a different name at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mugisha Emmanuel. Subject does not seem notable enough for a standalone article, at least not at this time, and clearly fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris 05:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Show (band) (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 appearance of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Lots of information here, but trying to verify any of it turns up crickets. Article was written by a 1-edit SPA apparently to promote a 2016 tour, and has remained essentialy unchanged ever since—except for adding even more promotional material, this time in support of a new venture involving the band's front men. StonyBrook babble 12:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Visakhapatnam Metro (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)

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Also this article says no metro to Visakhapatnam.- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/040821/no-vizag-vijayawada-metro-rail-for-now.html. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Vijayawada Metro (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)

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also this article says no metro to Vijayawada. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election (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)

Deleted in May, recreated and speedy deletion refused on basis of "new" sourcing. However, the sourcing in the article does not indicate anything of substance about the next election. The Hindu article simply notes a quote from one politican saying they should win the 2027 election. Sangai Express has nothing. North East Today quotes a politican indicating they will field candidates in 2027. Simple evidence that an election will occur in future is not enough to satisfy notability criteria. At this point, fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete It’s a future event which has no set date, but which is possibly years away, with no absolutely set candidates, and nothing but guesswork in sources.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How to $ell Your Wargame Design (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 believe this article fails WP:NBOOK. Aside from the one source listed in the article, a detailed search shows no other coverage of this book. If that one source wasn't listed, it would be hard to prove this book even exists. SJD Willoughby (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Navaratnalu (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)

Looks like a complete advertisement. Complete promotional, appears to be a political advertisement done in favour of a political party and its leader.

Looks like a pamphlet for the political party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Melvin Storer (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)

Being mistakenly reported killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't make this sailor notable (unless he was supposedly killed by the Germans). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Literally millions of Americans were awarded the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. What about the Bronze Star? Filmforme (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.
Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.
As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 1 2 3 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of content was added to this article after its nomination. Could editors review the additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

GTC FX (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)

It does not meet the notability guideline for companies. Some of the sources in the article are questionable. Frost 03:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete - as said above, does not meet WP:NCORP Mia 12:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Mister Venezuela 2005 (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 beauty pageant that fails WP:NEVENT. All sourcing is from either the pageant organizer or from bellezavenezolana.net. My analysis that this is a self published source has found at least one other editor in concurrence at RSN. Best to WP:TNT and start over if any good sources exist; my Spanish skills are nil and I haven't been able to find them. The article used to have more sources but they were invariably blogs and other SPS material. Here is a link to the prior revision before they were removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because of basically the same sourcing issue (save for two citations attesting that one of the contestants is gay):

Mister Venezuela 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Signed for bundling ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Death of Alberto Fujimori (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)

Single event, unlikely to garner more details (that would arguably add to the lack of notability of the event), already covered in Fujimori's page. Fails WP:1E, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep and expand It is highly notable, but just needs an expansion. dunno if a convict will have a state funeral, but that is notable iniself.Sportsnut24 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep and wait it's likely that the consequences of Fujimori's death will be notable; he will be getting a state funeral per El País and there will be more to come. If by the end of the seven days there's nothing notable that's happened, then I'll change my vote. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely sufficient to cover this in the main article. Violates WP:NOTNEWS. Having a state funeral (or not) is in no way a reason for a content fork. Geschichte (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The man has just died, there's little point in nominating the article now, how big the event will be is WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, the article passes WP:GNG and the funeral itself and its aftermath are yet to happen. I would like to point out that this isn’t just any state funeral; this was one of if not the most influential figure in Peruvian politics and across Latin America. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete: The guy may be influential, but the circumstances of death doesn't really ring much. If it were an extraordinary COD it may have passed GNG. As for the funeral it is WP:CRYSTAL. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Keepwithout prejudice to re-nominating later or userfying if it turns out there's not much to say. In my experience, these notnews/crystal deletions are typically pointless -- the news keeps rolling in, and the article gets edited, until it's clear whether it's notable. The deletion rationale seems simple at the front end, but trying to discuss notability as new articles get added daily is like trying to sweep back the tides ("relisting, anyone care to comment on the new sources identified above?")merge to Alberto Fujimori. Very little of note was reported around his funeral; it appears no attendance or accolades from world leaders; nothing significant surrounding the event itself. Oblivy (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely sufficient to cover this in the main article. --UpEpSilon (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: And Wait. Let's see how this story develops Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Main article can easily cover this. "Death of " articles do not need to exist separately from biographical articles that the person already had — they're created only where the death itself is a notable event but the person was not independently notable enough to get a conventional biographical article at all, meaning that they exist instead of a biographical article about the dead person, not as a supplement to a biographical article about the dead person. The deaths of already-notable people with biographical articles are covered in the biographical article, not in separate death-of spinoffs. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Although there's WP:SIGCOV, Fujimori already has an article. There's no need for a second one detailing his death - all new information can be added to the main article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete Yet another absurd rush to create separate and redundant pages. Add content to Alberto Fujimori#Illness and death, then propose a split if there's sufficient content. The main article also has a whole Legacy section that would cover how people react to his death. If you think the main article is too long, move other content to the several existing subarticles rather than jumping to make another. Reywas92 17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as there is in fact scope for expansion and Fujimori was a notable political figure. Jang317 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Notable political figures who already had biographical articles do not get their deaths spun off to separate "death of notable figure" articles — "Death of X" articles exist only for people who were not already notable in life so that the death itself is their entire basis for notability, and people who were already notable in life have their deaths covered in the biographical article rather than in a separate content fork. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this meant to be opinion or a statement of policy/guidelines/consensus? There many articles, for example Death and state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini, Death of Li Keqiang, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and so on, for people who were extremely notable in life. I'm not arguing for WP:OTHER, but I genuinely wonder if what you are saying is a policy, guideline, or even a consensus in the community.N.B. ] appears to support my point above about apparent lack of consensus for the position that these articles are not for people who were famous in life. Oblivy (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - A important event. Many other "Death of ____" articles exist. This isn't just the death of a random diplomat. It is the former President of Peru, who is notorious. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 09:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge / Delete The manner of his death was not newsworthy in itself, the funeral will be covered, but IMHO doesn’t need its own page when it can be used to cap off the main page about him instead.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep : I think this a Knowledge (XXG)-worthy article. The death of a president, in this case an authoritarian leader who had a lot of controversies while he ruled seems like a notable topic to me. Similarly, the future events as regards his funeral is also something to look out for given his legacies. Instead of a deletion nomination, I’ll suggest the article is kept and developed as more eventful information unfolds.additional comment the funeral held already but I’ll still retain my ‘keep-vote’.
Mevoelo (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep death of a famous president and public figure, as well as his state funeral Scuba 14:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Everyone's making crap up again. There is no guideline that says state funerals are entitled to standalone articles. The content about the president's death can be covered in the president's own article. Reywas92 20:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep, the state funeral itself is a significant event for a controversial autocrat. Altorespite 🌿 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. While we have had great participation here, almost every editor is focusing on the wrong question, whether or not you, as a person, think this event "deserves" an article. That factor is not important here. We assess discussions based on policies that are relevant and just as importantly, what reliable sources support. This article has been expanded since its nomination but I see no editors providing a review of the sources. This is what is needed to determine its notability, not opinions on whether or not this is an important event. Also, please do not move this article during this AFD discussion, or closure tools, XFDcloser can't decipher what to do when the page title of the article is different from the one at the top of this discussion page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mark Diamond (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)

Questionable notability for Australian bureaucrat. Most sources discuss the RTBU rather than Diamond. Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Profile is sufficing the WP:BLP and WP:Notability. As per the WRS, here's the link providing his mentions on multiple government official websites as well as on Parliament of New South Wales' official website. Article can be made concise rejecting the poorly sourced information. Here are the links below I have found during research validating his notability.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/rail-unions-given-24-hours-to-call-off-industrial-action-20220901-p5bepf.html
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/06/sydney-train-strikes-union-boss-hopes-federal-intervention-puts-go-slow-on-nsw-government-action
https://www.rtbu.org.au/mark_diamond_appointed_as_new_rtbu_national_secretary
https://www.rtbu.org.au/who_s_who
https://www.actu.org.au/directory/rail-tram-and-bus-union-rtbu-national-office/
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/dominic-perrottet-told-to-call-gladys-berejiklian-as-rail-feud-continues/news-story/12176af725b86627d3612ee8ee0a7586
https://www.rtbu.org.au/national_council_2023_wrap
https://rtbuexpress.com.au/rtbu-owned-training-organisation/
https://www.rtbu.org.au/resignation_of_national_secretary_mark_diamond
https://www.railexpress.com.au/rtbu-appoints-new-national-secretary/
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/compromise-in-the-jobs-summit-confrontation-in-the-foyer-20220901-p5bemu.html
https://www.fullyloaded.com.au/rtbu-names-new-national-secretary/
https://www.busnews.com.au/rtbu-says-federal-budget-a-turning-point-in-public-transport-funding/
https://www.themandarin.com.au/198708-perrottet-and-rtbu-attend-summit-as-industrial-actions-continue/
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/organisations/registered-orgs/139v-r2022-201.pdf
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-96367
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/01/dummy-spitting-nsw-government-gives-rail-union-24-hours-to-end-industrial-action
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/wallan-train-derailment-union-says-track-awaiting-maintenance/11987230
Tamaraharon (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
rtbu.org.au would be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get an assessment on this huge list of links so we know whether or not they are reliable. Tamaraharon, it would be helpful if you made this live, active links.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete I had looked at this article when it was first listed, and found many of the sources identified by @Tamaraharon so this was quick work. Aside from the primary sources, these are mostly just Diamond being quoted in an article which I don't think qualifies for notability. I see one source that qualifies for notability in the whole pile -- the Sydney Morning Herald article, #11 below -- which can be seen as significant and independent coverage from a major news outlet. The Guardian article #16 has a bit of editorial independence but it's really short - basically quoting him and then quoting someone reacting to him.
  • - quoting MD only
  • - quoting MD only
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - doesn't mention MD
  • - quoting extensively with some editorial independence (but no independent reporting about Diamond)
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
  • - independent, significant, about Diamond
  • - same as railexpress.com.au article #10, lacks independence
  • - quoting MD only
  • - mention only
  • - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
  • - quoting MD, plus very brief coverage
  • - quoting MD only
Oblivy (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I highly doubt your assessment of sources because the pages that you published, you have cited primary sources, even press releases of the same company website. Here's the example Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-10 , Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-11, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-2, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-3. In fact, most of the sources in your pages are weakest and lack reliability so i believe your assessment of sources on Mark Diamond page is bias. Tamaraharon (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Article should be converted to a stub using only independent reliable sources. This justifies WP:Notability. Chris.lee auth (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Hemshin (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)

Fail to see how this is notable. Whole article is probably WP:SYNTH. Creator of this article conveniently added no pages for the citations, and when I looked into one of two of them (can't access the other, though it is likely the same case), I found no mention about this event . I'm not surprised, since they also misused citations at Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC) HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

52/17 rule (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 primary research self-published in advertising blogs (WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLOGS). However, a couple of independent, non-scientific publications (The Atlantic, Washington Post; see refs 14 and 16 in article) picked it up and published their own short articles mentioning it, so I guess that notability is somewhat murky. Antispasm (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Persikasa Sarolangun (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 guidelines, and I can find no non-passing coverage. Will retract if sources are found. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

SouthSouthNorth (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:NORG. No in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Richard Fontaine (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)

Despite being a prolific writer of op-eds and magazine articles, Fontaine is not himself the subject of any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. (The closest example is a press release-based WP:ROUTINE article about his appointment as president of CNAS.) As a result, there's no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. No other SNGs appear to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Impasse (comics) (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)

An incredibly minor fictional character that, from what I can tell, only appeared in one, single issue of a comic. The one non-primary source being used in the article simply summarizes the plot of that single appearance. Searches turned up absolutely nothing else, not even brief mentions, on the character in reliable sources. Even fan wikis like the Marvel Database don't have an entry on the character. The character is as completely non-notable as a fictional character can possibly be, and is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - I touched upon this in another similar AFD earlier today, but this particular case is a even bigger example of why a Merge to that article is improper. A throwaway adversary that appeared in one issue of a comic is not a "supporting character" of Iron Fist and Luke Cage. Listing the character on that page as if they were is outright misleading. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Regardless of where it is, a completely inconsequential character that made one single-issue appearance is too non-notable to be merged or mentioned anywhere. The very act of covering the character on Knowledge (XXG) in any capacity would create more notability for the character than actually exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • That is a different objection from "listing him under supporting characters is misleading". The fact that the character has received its own entry in the specialized Encyclopedia of Super-Villains (although that one differs somewhat in nature to our encyclopedia here) in my view gives him enough notability, obviously not for a stand-alone article, but for a two-sentence summary in a list. And that view is not based on personal evaluation of the primary material. It's also one common way lists work. And I don't see a benefit in not having this condensed information. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete so non-notable we honestly don't even need a mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Gold Apollo AR924 (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)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Seems only notable within the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG.
While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to non-BLP articles, WP:NPRODUCT does, and although secondary sources refer to this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as not an indiscriminate collection of information is applicable. Evan  00:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete No other model of pager produced by the company exists on Knowledge (XXG), information related to this product should be at most made a small section on the manufacturer's page. Beyond recent events, it is otherwise completely irrelevant to anything other than the company. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete was a completely non-notable model of pager until this recent news story. Andre🚐 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a weapon used in an attack. With up to 4000 victims, the event can have multiple articles. Possibly move to BAC Consulting. The technical details of the pager are not important, but the supply chain is. Note, that other weapons (talkie-talkies) were also used in the attack. The key question the article needs to answer is who made the pagers and who is responsible for their safety, Gold Apollo or BAC Consulting. Protecting Gold Apollo from bad publicity is not a reason for deleting the article. If they go bankrupt because of this, they fully deserve it. They had a responsibility to protect their trade mark.
P.S. - Knowledge (XXG) has an article on Stuxnet, but no article on the attack itself or the damage it caused. The Stuxnet article focuses on the weapon and on how it was delivered. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This is very flawed. The weapon was the explosives. Stuxnet was specific malware that exploited four zero day Windows vulnerabilities, and the article is about the engineered malware, and not about the model of USB drive it initially infected. But also that argument is off the point. The pager product is only notable if there are reliable independent secondary sources that significantly discuss the pager (not the attack, but the actual pager). Do we have any such sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Petri Krohn; There is an article for the attack itself. Parham wiki (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gold Apollo#2024 Israeli tampering and explosions in Lebanon per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:SPINOUT, and WP:LENGTH. The parent article has existed since 2014 and has plenty of room to house this information, which is already there in its essential form. No need to delete this highly searchable term since it is a verified product which has been rendered notable by recent events. Havradim leaf a message 01:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Many thousands of these devices exploded the other day, injuring, maiming or killing nearly 3000 people. This device is now by far the most notable pager/beeper ever made. This device is at the very center of one of the most dramatic and historic espionage and irregular warfare operations in human history that is certain to be studied and analyzed for many years to come. Already, numerous reliable sources worldwide are discussing this device in great detail, and it boggles my mind that some editors think that this article should be summarily removed. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The flaw in this argument is that the exact make and model of pager that was manipulated does not provide justification for an article. Similarly, we have Bulgarian umbrella that details how umbrellas have been rebuilt into a murder weapon - but without creating an article on the actual model of umbrella that was modified - exactly because the make and model of the modified implement does not in itself provide it with notability. Lklundin (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The point is that the discussion of this device and the supply chain should be in the main explosion article, which is currently a small fraction of the size that would warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
There are currently 19 sources on the article —danhash (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Which of these meet WP:NPRODUCT and WP:SIRS? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Files

File:Love Live! promotional image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juhachi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as this poster's role of identifying Love Live! School Idol Project can be achieved with the free file c:File:Love Live! logo with line.svg on Commons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Displaying the characters and the art style of the series contributes significantly to reader recognition and understanding of the topic. The logo does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. — Goszei (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
An image displaying the characters and the art style of the series, such as this one sourced from Polygon, can be included in Love Live! School Idol Project § Characters to illustrate them. Infoboxes for Knowledge (XXG) articles on media franchises often include logos too simple for copyright protection, again per WP:NFCC#1 (for examples, see Star Wars, Harry Potter and Toy Story ). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Lee, Julia (February 25, 2020). "Love Live!, the Japanese anime idol series, explained". Polygon. Archived from the original on February 25, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2024.
File:Tuoni-by-Tero-Porthan.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Juustila (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A fair use image is not necessary to illustrate this mythical deity, especially a modern illustration Di (they-them) (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete as unencyclopedic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Years of the 20th century in North Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: merge, duplicate scope in South Vietnam, all years were in the 20th century. Rename North Vietnam for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Closed military installations

Nominator's rationale: I can see no useful distinction between "closed" and "former". – Fayenatic London 07:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag all of the "former" categories. Discussion on direction of renaming/merging would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Selena y Los Dinos

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous parent category here is unnecessary just for a members subcat, especially since Category:Selena exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is enough to warrant an eponymous category for the group. Plus, the Selena category serves the same purpose and is more all encompassing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two subcategories and Selena y Los Dinos in this category as of relisting. Is this enough for it to be kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Comics retailers

Nominator's rationale: split, we do not usually mix biographies and companies. This is a kind of undoing of the result of this 2008 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Comics retailers in Canada.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Seljuk Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, category contains only one article which is not helpful for navigation. Merging is not needed, the article is also in Category:Infectious disease deaths in Syria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Furry stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with little prospect of expansion to the required size. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any topic of personal interest -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be proposed to Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stub sorting for discussion before they can be created. But this was never proposed for discussion, and there's only one article here with no prospect of finding 59 others quickly: the mainspace category Category:Furry fandom doesn't even contain 60 articles total across it and all of its subcategories combined, and what it does contain isn't all (or even mostly) stubs.
The template isn't as much of a problem -- the minimum bar for a stub template isn't 60 articles, as templates can file articles into higher-level stub categories in the meantime even if they don't yet have enough articles to get their own dedicated category. So I'm fine with keeping it if somebody can think of an appropriate higher-level category that it can be moved to -- but as a stub template does have to file its entries somewhere, it also has to be deleted if a replacement stub category can't be found. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:British businesspeople in the natural gas industry

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single article which is about the chief executive of an energy supplier. AusLondonder (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Georgian–Seljuk wars

Nominator's rationale: rename, per actual content, except for one article they are all about battles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Catering and food service companies of Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles and only a subcat not about catering and food service companies (Category:Hotels in Scotland) AusLondonder (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lutilodix

Nominator's rationale: https://doi.org/10.1071/IS22049 NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Finishing (construction)

Nominator's rationale: Useless category containing a single article. AusLondonder (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Places named after Canadian politicians

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME violations. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize things for who or what they were named after. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fire prevention in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only subcat by country in the Category:Fire prevention tree and contains only a single redirect to Building regulations in the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom (1). Mason (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:College sports teams by university

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer Mason (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Subfields of astrophysics

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This category is underpopulated, and not helpful for navigation with only two pages in it Mason (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hyperinflations

Nominator's rationale: Duel merge. There are only two pages in here that, which isn't helpful for navigation. If not merged, the category should be renamed to Hyperinflation to reflect the topic category Hyperinflation Mason (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Olympic Games swimming controversies

Nominator's rationale: I think we should purge and selectively merge this category because olympic swimming controversies are vague, and we don't really have enough content in Swimming controversies that are non-olympic to justify diffusing Mason (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:TripleS (group)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:Nominator's rationale: The group doesn’t require disambiguation. The category should simply be renamed to "TripleS." Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand. How do I withdraw my request? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stations of Tokyo Toden

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tram stops in Switzerland by municipality

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one subcategory in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Livonian Order

Nominator's rationale: rename, "associated with" is unnecessarily vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Game jam video games

Nominator's rationale: Having been initially created as part of a game jam is not defining for these games. While it can be an interesting factoid that shows how game jams help inspire developers, my guess is that most players of Celeste, Inscryption, etc. don't know or care that it originated in a game jam, and it certainly isn't mentioned prominently in the gaming media. That makes this category fail WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because some players may not know the game originated from a game jam doesn't invalidate that there is recognization of what game jams produce in the industry as a whole, so this is a defining category. Also, "not mentioned prominently in gaming media" can be disproven with sources, , , etc. --Masem (t) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Surnames of Lechitic origin

Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant very thin linguistic layers. --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

I've been locked inside your heart-shaped box for weeks

No mention of the word "locked" at the target article, and the mention of "weeks" is not in the context of the lyric. People looking for this subject will be misled, as it's not a lyric we cover at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name, it felt good to be out of the rain

No mention of rain at the target article, totally implausible to type this entire thing when it contains the song name in question. With no material about this lyric at the target article, this is a confusing redirect which misleads readers who think we cover this subject when we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I wrote it on the Starter cap

No mention of a "starter cap" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

'Cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks

No mention of "halfway" or "crooks" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Wu-Tang is for the children

No mention of "Wu-Tang" in the children's section, and no mention of children pertaining to Wu-Tang's entry. Without any context at the target page, this redirect does not answer questions for the reader, and only creates them (as I am now confused and am searching externally to find this, as the Knowledge (XXG) page has not assisted this). Btw it was a "phrase uttered" during these Grammy's, but our article for it does not indicate as such. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Two to the one from the one to the three

You reposted this redirect on the wrong Knowledge (XXG) (not mentioned). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't you wanna grow up to be just like me

No mention of this lyric at the target article. It is much more plausible for readers to be using the song name as a search term to reach this, or investigating elsewhere to find out what song this comes from, in order to answer the FAQ about the song & lyric combo, which Knowledge (XXG) is not a FAQ. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Check baby check baby one two three four

No mention of "check baby" at the target page; this lyric isn't mentioned, and I don't foresee people using a countdown as a search term to reach the page about the target song. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ass so fat that you could see it from the front

No mention of this lyric at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I take seven kids from Columbine, stand 'em all in line, add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine

The Columbine controversy is mentioned, with a section discussing the lyric. However, this is not the lyric. The lyric says "AK-47, a revolver, and a .9", and starts with "I'll take" instead of "I take". That said, there is no mention of AK-47s or revolvers at the target article, either, so this title is spelled out well beyond what is covered and listed at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady, all you other Slim Shadies are just imitating

This lyric is not mentioned at the target article. It is far more plausible for someone to type in the name of the song, rather than a full lyric ending in the word "imitating", which "imitating" does not appear at the target article. This is not an alternative name for the song, even if a line in the chorus. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Dre's dead, he's locked in my basement

There's no mention of a basement at the target article; people using this particularly lyric will be disappointed to find no material related to the content of their lyrical search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Guess who's back, back again

Does not appear at the target article. Incidentally, this is also a lyric for Houdini, but mentioned at neither article. This isn't a helpful search term for people looking for Eminem topics, as they'd either search the song names, or search his. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Lang1

These should all belong to one set, or none at all. There is also Template:Lang which is completely unrelated to these. I think deletion would be a good option as I can't see any real reason to prefer one warning template over the others. Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I said a hip, hop, the hippie the hippie to the hip hop, and you don't stop

This is not the lyric of the song, it goes "to the hip-hip-hop and you don't stop". But even so, this is not a likely method of reaching this title. People who want to find the song that goes like this, can try a search engine built for such. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey girls, hey boys, superstar DJs, here we go!

No mention of superstar DJs at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire, we don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn, motherfucker, burn!

Implausible to use the full length of the chorus to reach the article for the song, when this can be achieved by typing "the roof is on fire". Whether or not the article is known for its song, we don't make these redirects unless there is relevant, sourced and structured content at the target page, else people using this search term will be confused where the content is related to their search. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Mac Dad'll make you jump, jump, Daddy Mac'll make you jump jump

No mention of "mac dad", or "daddy mac". While a lyric, without mention this does not provide any benefit to readers, who are likely to get here from the song name. There is no context for this search term, or where "daddy mac" is derived. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Death Row's in tha muthaphukkin house

Not listed in the target article, and definitely not at this spelling (is missing a "c", apparently?) Utopes (talk / cont) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Meditation

Meditation and Mediation are drastically different concepts, and editors would be better served by a red link to indicate that they've used the completely wrong word rather than a silent redirect (as existed at WikiProject Medicine for months). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thibault Perissat

Not a likely needed redirect Bastun 17:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 21:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the (new) target of the current target (redirect) - 2024 World Series of Poker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

EYS

Not a plausible target. One meaning of this initialism seems to be Eu Yan Sang, though there are likely others. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The great edit war

The page it redirects to has no mention of any edit war. Probably a reference to some edit war on the page, but I don't think that warrants a redirect, and there's been many other big edit wars anyways. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete, there's a mainspace List of edit wars on Knowledge (XXG) but none of them is singled out as "the great" one (and Caesar salad is not listed). Belbury (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

FuBl 2

Not mentioned at target. Is this referring to the differently capitalised "FuBL 2" at Luftwaffe_radio_equipment_of_World_War_II#Navigation_and_direction_finding? 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ∫edits 11:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Verenigd Koninkrijk

Delete per WP:RLANG – Dutch name for the United Kingdom. Cremastra (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ∫edits 11:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ḙ

These were nominated in 2010 as part of a WP:TRAINWRECKy nomination already, but they are not mentioned at the target, which barely talks about a circumflex below (note that this is currently a red link) at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 07:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ∫edits 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sufferin' succotash

A catchphrase not mentioned at the target article. People interested in reading about this character would be more likely to search for the character. There is no content about this phrase here, and Knowledge (XXG) is not a search engine for "who said this line". Utopes (talk / cont) 17:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep : What's the problem and what's your suggestion? I don't see a problem here, and "who said this line" is a helpful service. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    The problem is as described above (i.e. catchphrases not mentioned at target articles are problematic and misleading due to inherent lack of context and confusion caused for readers). My suggestion is to delete, aligning with past precedents that: "phrase, lyric, and quote redirects that point to articles where they are not mentioned are misleading and cause confusion for readers"; such was the result for a sizeable set of RfDs nominated early this year: Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#It's not personal. It's strictly business. In this situation, there is currently no mention of any "suffering" being undergone by anyone, much less the variation of "sufferin'" used as a search term dropping the "g". "Succotash" is also not mentioned nor alluded to in the article at this time. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    I guess your italics indicate a quote from somewhere, and there must've been some prior discussion of this issue that I'm not familiar with. I thought the threshold for a redirect was lower than it would be for a DAB (i.e., WP:DABMENTION). In my personal experience, people sometimes remember a catchphrase but can't remember the name of the person who said it or what show it was in, and just need a little reminder. "To the Moon, Alice!" —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies for the confusion; the italics was a retelling of my nomination statement, which in turn summarizes some past discussions about unmentioned "r from catchphrases" and "r from lyrics".
    I fully agree that a tool for searching a catchphrase in order to find the source is a great function, but it more suitable for open-ended search engines such as Google or Youtube which aggregate differently. Doing so on Knowledge (XXG) would only work for an exact title match of existing content, and nothing will appear in the built-in search engine for those without mentions in the article. To the Moon, Alice! is an example of a suitable r from catchphrase, as it's a phrase that receives a mention in the plot section as well as allusions in the legacy section (that is if this quote is a version of "bang zoom straight to the moon", which is the aspect discussed and referred to here). Utopes (talk / cont) 19:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    To push back on that a little, just because Google (or the Youtube site it operates) might usually do a better job of finding a subject doesn't mean a search string is not worth trying to have at all. Knowledge (XXG) is less spammy (among other considerations), and its search box sometimes leads to what you're looking for if no one deletes the redirect at (or similar to) the string you type. "Sufferin' succotash" is an extremely famous phrase for this character, and is only two words, so it wouldn't have a lot of variation in what people would type to look for it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix 15:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ∫edits 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Chrysolith

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 10:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jisan

Not mentioned at target, but there are Jisan station, Jisan Valley Rock Festival, Numbers_(South_Korean_TV_series)#Jisan_Bank and potentially others. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the D&D thing the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the D&D topic is anywhere near primary. It is not prominent in a basic Google search , only appearing once. Jisan Station and Jisan Forest appear more times. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Palestine Israel

Classic WP:XY. Delete. — GodsyCONT) 04:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't know that WP:XY fits here. Someone typing both Israel and Palestine into the search box, in whichever order, is almost certainly looking for information on the conflict. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but this seems like the appropriate target to me. Fieari (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Idk what it even means? Do we have any actual data on how many people use that as a search term? And then, if they do, where they go afterwards? Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Both were created too recently to have truly reliable usage figures, but they got 10 and 17 hits between creation on 22nd August and yesterday, which suggests that they are plausible search terms (but note that almost all redirects get above typical views in the first circa 2-4 days after creation (I guess due to new page patrolers and similar) and significantly more than typical views during and just after being listed at RfD). Everybody who views a redirect goes to the redirect target, I don't think that where they go after that is tracked and all such data that does exist is only released for large volumes of people and (iirc) aggregated by complete calendar month (all for privacy reasons) so wouldn't be useful here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Do the same as with #Palestine and Israel. I can't see any reason why people would be expecting different things with or without the "and". Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with that; the inclusion/exclusion of "and" makes all the difference. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
    For reference, the linked discussion is at Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Palestine and Israel and was closed as "disambiguate". Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep (disclaimer: creator of both); same reasoning as Fieari and backed by data from Thryduulf; plus WP:XY does state that in some cases redirects should point to a location in which both topics are discussed. This is the closest to a perfect target we can get anyways. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete this is an example on WP:XY, search results would be better here as who knows what specific page they would be looking for. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
XY is not a reason to delete when we have content that deals with both X and Y (the combination, interaction or intersection), which we do in this case. When it's not clear which of multiple possible articles someone is looking for we use disambiguation and set indexes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. Israel is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Israel. The lack of any conjunctions separating the two words make these confusing redirects at best, harmful redirecting anywhere at worst. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does WP:XY apply here? If it does, is it still a reason to delete in this case? (see Thryduulf's comment in response to Traumnovelle). Is the search term ambiguous? More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete with or without the "and", I would assume that this topic refers to "Israel/Palestine", that is the entire land "between the river and the sea" sometimes called Israel, sometimes called Palestine, and sometimes called partly Israel and partly Palestine. The conflict is not an adequate redirect because it is merely one event that has taken place in this territory quite recently. (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    That feels like an argument to redirect to Land of Israel or Palestine (region), and thus an argument to disambiguate. I can't see how you get to delete? Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

God of the New Testament

When the God of the Old Testament (also a recently created redirect) is contrasted with the God of the New Testament, this is not generally the sentiment being expressed. Certainly not attempting to start a trinitarian debate though -- ha. — GodsyCONT) 05:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. The New Testament God is Greek and doesn't equate with the Hebrew Yahweh. Trinity is at odds with the Old Testament. Jesus is a better re-direct that the "Trinity."--Arbeiten8 (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Change target to Names and titles of God in the New Testament. Definitely not "keep", as either the Trinity or God the Father are more obvious synonyms than Jesus. Fram (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget, either as suggested by Fram (though that article is solely about naming) or to God in Christianity. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested by Fram. At best the phrase is ambiguous, and "Jesus" is not usually described as "God" in the New Testament, but treated as a separate entity. P Aculeius (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I actually don't think we have a good target here. The nominator is correct that Jesus is not really an appropriate target. I don't think the target suggested by Fram is that helpful, as searchers would probably not be looking for information on the name of God IMO. My preference would be for a red link, because having an article about the concept of God in the New Testament specifically seems like a plausible article topic. (Rosbif73's suggestion of God in Christianity is a better target than the other two articles but still not my first preference). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • There is also New Testament theology. Surprisingly, we don't seem to have a lot of content on the topic of this redirect anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    I considered that as a target as well, but that article is more about academic studies than discussing the theology per se. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Let's take a step back a moment and consider the context of these two phrases. In modern English discourse, when someone says "God of the Old Testament" they, rightly or wrongly, are referring to the concept of an angry vengeful god that actively destroys the wicked, or just anyone insufficiently respectful. When someone says "God of the New Testament", they, rightly or wrongly, are referring to a "peace and love", "hippie" style pacifist, non-interventionalist, forgiving god. Again, I'm not talking theology right now (if I was, I would vehemently disagree with both of the previous statements) I'm simply talking about what these phrases mean in the English language. Given that this is what the phrases mean, I think both links should go to an article that discusses these specific aspects or perceptions of god... I'm sure we have some, or should have some, given how extensively these topics have been discussed and written on by all manner of scholars. There may be more than one good target, in which case a disambiguation page might be appropriate. I think I would object to simply targeting Jesus or God in Christianity, as these don't really cover the plain meanings of how the phrases are used in English. I don't think we should delete, because this is a VERY plausible search term, and we DO have information on it... the problem is just pointing the user to the correct spots they are looking for. I don't have specific suggestions for where to go though, as... quite frankly, there's a lot. But the status quo doesn't seem right. Fieari (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris 10:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Barney and Brothers

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7

Evil Dead 4

I think this redirect fits better for Evil Dead (2013 film). Thoughts? Mr slav999 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Retarget: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 12:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Iweh Pascal Odinaka(Poco Lee)

The redirect Iweh Pascal Odinaka already exists, so I see no reason that this redirect without a space before the "(" needs to exist. GTrang (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Chima big brother

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Nomination withdrawn

Post (X)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: nomination withdrawn

Amu TV

Subject isn't even mentioned in the target article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Japanese opera

Suggest deletion: the target article does not mention opera. The topic of Japanese opera is likely a notable one and this should be red link per WP:RED Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

God of the Old Testament

Recently created alongside God of the New Testament (also under discussion at RfD). I don't think that Yahweh is the best target, as it's hard to know if readers will be looking for the ancient interpretation as discussed in the current target or more contemporary ones. I suggest retargeting to God of Israel (a disambiguation page), which is a synonymous phrase IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Santa Maria Beach

Does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on the English Knowledge (XXG) in the context of GTA. There is, however, an article on a beach called Praia de Santa Maria, as well as content on some beaches located in places named Santa Maria, such as Santa_Maria,_Ilocos_Sur#Santa_Maria_Beach, Santa María del Mar District (Peru), Capo_Vaticano#Geography, Beach_cleaning#Cleanest_beaches, as well as some image captions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Back O' Beyond

We don't seem to have content on this fictional location, and all search result on Knowledge (XXG) are passing mentions (of unrelated topics). 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We can't retarget this redirect to a page that doesn't exist. Any second choices?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters

There is no list at the target. The former page could be moved to characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters, if that is deleted beforehand) to preserve page history. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering that there are over a dozen RFD discussions that are relisted, waiting for this discussion to close, it's disappointing that this one has gotten so few arguments stating what editors want to happen with these pages and so it must be relisted, too. Where are all of the RFD regulars?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jizzy B.

Not mentioned at target; not sure if the content we have at Charlie_Murphy_(actor)#Career is enough for a redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ran Fa Li

Does not appear anywhere on the English Knowledge (XXG). 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Hernandez

Not mentioned at target, though does occur at Community_Resources_Against_Street_Hoodlums#In_popular_culture and Carl_Johnson_(Grand_Theft_Auto)#Return_to_Los_Santos. There is an unrelated person at African_diaspora_in_Finland#Sportspeople and another one at Omar_Rodríguez-López#Startled_Calf_(1991–1992), however, so I'm not sure this redirect is appropriate without further disambiguation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Zero (Grand Theft Auto)

Not mentioned at target, and a bit difficult to immediately see whether we have any content on this one. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editor asking for a delay until a different RFD discussion is closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Templates and Modules

Propose merging Template:Advert with Template:Promotional tone.
{{Advert}} is rarely used on articles that actually read like adverts; what is most often (indeed, almost exclusively) meant is what is described by {{Promotional tone}} (aka {{Promo}}), which has a better name and better wording ("This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone." vs. "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.". The use of {{Advert}} is thus often a cause of confusion among novice editors whose work is tagged with it. We certainly don't need two such templates. i also note that the category used by {{Advert}} is Category:Articles with a promotional tone; that {{Advert inline}} redirects to {{Promotion inline}}; and that {{Promotion}} redirects to {{Advert}}. I propose to redirect {{Advert}} to {{Promotional tone}}, and to have tools such as Twinkle updated accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably what needs to happen is that {{advert}} needs to be page moved to the preferable title, not redirected, as the longer-standing template serving this function. Izno (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That won't address the sub-optimal wording (which is apparently the reason why {{Promo}} was forked in the first place). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

These serve no useful purpose from what I can see, and the 2024 European Parliament elections are already all linked via {{European Parliament elections}}. I am not aware of any other templates linking all elections by year for a continent (probably as not many other people see a benefit in doing so). Number 57 20:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Contains special characters. BOLDly merging these as the nominator is not opposed. If anyone objects, feel free to drop me a message and I will re-open this discussion, noting that I have removed current usage in these seven edits. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Contains Tirhuta text with Template:Contains special characters.
Previously we had merged all of these related templates into {{Contains special characters}} (TfD here). These were uncategorized until recently so was missed from that list. Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel like these could be BOLDly merged without the need for a TFD, given the precedent (and existence) of the primary template. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Gonnym, if you're not opposed, I'll just do that. Will wait for your reply. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac I don't disagree with you about these being boldly merged, however I feel like that about most of my nominations, so I better err on sending them here :) Also I'm not opposed. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

This template is a documentation template, but it's used on a /doc page which isn't where documentation should go. Either this is useful and should be converted to the template /doc page, or deleted. Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Only contains 1 English entry. Pointless having a nav box for 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Miscellany

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the Knowledge (XXG):Tip of the day for no reason at all. Compare the current version of Knowledge (XXG) talk:Tip of the day to this version. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review because I am dumbfounded by the interpretation of consensus. The article was nominated for deletion because it fails WP:GNG: it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The Keep !votes argue that "she would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women". Somehow this speculative argument has been found to outweigh the fact that there is, in fact, no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Is it now enough to assert that sources would have existed if the world were a different place? Is this going to apply to content disputes as well? Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Mikheil Lomtadze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello. Please consider restoring the article. It was deleted twice before. The last time on September 19, the article was removed by quick deletion. It was in draft for a long time and then moved to the main space. The article is written in a neutral tone with authoritative sources. There were no claims to significance in the draft. There were questions regarding the style of presentation. The draft has been corrected. However, after moving to the main space, the article was deleted. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. Previous deletion review: Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2022 April 7#Mikheil Lomtadze. I'm leaning toward simply assuming that the content was sufficiently identical in spite of the stated corrections regarding style.—Alalch E. 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    I cleaned the article of advertising phrases and unnecessary sources. Please look at the latest deleted version of the article. It was moved from the draft. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse and speedy close. Both AfDs, the previous DRV, and the subsequent G4 were all correct. Someone seems to be paying good money to revive this self-aggrandizing curriculum vitae, and our goal should be to minimize the time wasted by other editors re-reviewing this. Consider adding to WP:DEEPER if this comes back here again. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    You are very categorical. The person is significant. The last edition of the article was not written in an advertising tone. I submitted a request here to discuss restoring the article. The deleted article was not created bypassing recovery. It was in draft for a long time and then was moved. All comments have been eliminated. Nobody pays any money! There is no monetary interest on my part! 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'll endorse this too. The text is different, but there are no new relevant, substantive factual changes except his purchase of Wycombe Wanderers F.C. (BBC ref). 20 of 32 refs were present in at least one of the versions deleted at afd, most of the rest aren't WP:SIGCOV, and at least one has the same text as one of the refs in the previous versions (there were 75 of those; I'm not about to read them all). —Cryptic 11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    You can cut out even more of the text and make a stub. The person is significant according to Knowledge (XXG) criteria. And as the owner of a football club, and as the owner of the largest bank in Kazakhstan. I did not intend to make an advertisement out of this article. I was editing a draft that someone had created over a year ago that had been moved into the main space. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    The way you have constructed your DRV nomination makes it impractical to process. You should have made a new draft precisely along the lines of "make a stub" based entirely on the WP:THREE best references so that the draft speaks for itself as evidence that a suitable encyclopedia entry is possible. Lack of certainty among editors that it is possible is literally the thing that causes the article to be repeatedly deleted. Do you want to do that? Please remember, three. —Alalch E. 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    WP:THREE is as usual good advice, but "make a stub" in this case isn't - there was a new article. The problem is that, whether long (the 2024 and September 2022 deletions) or short (the March 2022 deletion and proposed new stub), there doesn't seem to be anything to say about this person other than that he has a whole lot of money; that he's spent some of it; that he's run a couple redlinked companies; and that there's a bunch of very shallow and similar articles saying all that. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note logs at alternate romanization Mikhail Lomtadze. —Cryptic 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep. I came across the most recent incarnation of this page during New Page Review and was prepared to G4 it, but as I checked the sources, they did include SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. As a result, I decided to mark it as reviewed. (I also wanted to defer to the judgment of Dr vulpes, who published the article at AfC, which is precisely where a COI editor should be expected to submit content.) This could be is a DRV#3 case, where there's new coverage and new information (principally Lomtadze's acquisition of a football club, which resulted in new SIGCOV meeting the standard (see BBC and Vedomosti). It's also a case of DRV#5, in which the two deletion nominations did not rely on a detailed source analysis. I believe the nominations were made in good faith (there is clearly COI/UPE going on) but the nomination statements did not show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search, and neither the (very poorly argued) "keep" !votes nor the (good faith) "delete" !votes did any detailed source evaluation. Instead, the discussion focused more on Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan! (the keeps) while the deletes focused on the UPE and COI issues plus the low-quality sources present in the article. However, a WP:BEFORE search finds SIGCOV in Forbes (by Forbes staff and thus a reliable source), in Bloomberg News in 2020 and again in November 2022. In Georgian, we have a major in-depth profile on Radio Tavisupleba and coverage in Fortune.ge. I think it's time to revisit these previous discussions and overturn to "keep," while protecting the page to mitigate COI editing. Alternatively, we could bring this to a new AfD where the sources can be re-evaluated, particularly those that have been published since the last AfD in 2022. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn G4 (do nothing else; don't touch the AfD, which is not even contested). Not sufficiently identical (text significantly different and article less refbombed) and too heavily contested for a speedy deletion. AfD said the content was promotional but notability worth exploring, and then an AfC reviewer accepted the submission apparently accepting the new text as not promotional and a new page patroller marked the article as reviewed. So the last incarnation was a non-negligible attempt to fix the promo side at least, while notability is neither here or there in terms of settledness because not even the AfD was closed as "delete" purely on the grounds of lack of notability, and in this DRV notability is being revisited kind of de novo. G4 isn't the correct tool to address this.—Alalch E. 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed to Resubmit to AfD per the source analysis done by Dclemens1971. I still see no fault in the AfDs or the previous DRV, but there's no need to deprive ourselves of a potentially notable topic just to punish COI editors. A semi-protect for the article would be advisable. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Time for a new AfD based on the new version that was just G4ed. Semi Involved as closer of 2022 AfD. While I don't know whether factors have sufficiently changed that Lomtadze is notable and don't have time or interest to dig into the sources, it's worth community discussion and not a speedy. Star Mississippi 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal.
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community
topics
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries

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

↑