Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newhaven lad (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 7 July 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian Association of the Blind.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 06 July 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Association of the Blind

Croatian Association of the Blind (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 reference to this except for the organisation's own website and Facebook / Twitter posts and some accounts of meetings of the organisation (for example the annual training event at https://vijesti.hrt.hr/hrvatska/hrvatski-savez-slijepih-11611855). There may of course be other references that I haven't found that would demonstrate notability (and might, incidentally, also enable the page to be deorphaned). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitim Reçi

Fitim Reçi (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)

Reçi debuted at a very young age but has now been inactive for over six years and I'm struggling to find any non-database sources on him. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC based on my Albanian source searches. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Outlawz. and I'll lay down some protection here as well. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaki Kadafi

AfDs for this article:
Yaki Kadafi (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)

Multiple times contested WP:BLAR; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from this musician's main group, Outlawz. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎‎. Valid reason from article creator. Any other editor is free to nominate article if they feel the subject is not suitable according to Wikipedia notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Sports

Plug Sports (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 looks like a WP:PROMOTION to me, Wikipedia Conflict of interest and WP:PAY. It all traced down from the creator who created the article Asa Asika, then created for his company The Plug and now creating branches for the company such as Plug Sports all from one editor who never went through WP:AFCREVIEW. I won't be surprise to see more branches coming up from either the same creator or suck puppet account. The creator also uploaded the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plug_Sports.jpg gotten from the company instagram page. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It is not mandatory to go through WP:AFCREVIEW. In addition, as an Extended confirmed user I can create articles without submitting them. For clarification, I have no COI with the company or its co-owners, and according to billboard, they are pioneers of Afrobeats. So why not? 🤷‍♂️.--Afí-afeti (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumkum Munsi

Kumkum Munsi (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)

Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey A. McNiff

Audrey A. McNiff (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 person does not seem very notable, just a retired executive. one of the only recent pieces of information that comes up when I search her name is this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/07/abortion-rights-supporters-wont-get-their-amendment-passed-without-republican-women-like-audrey-mcniff-00165157 CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎ per reasonable requests Star Mississippi 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

Very Important People (2023 TV series) (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 it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which coverage? Please enlighten with STA. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what STA is. Examples of significant coverage and significant mentions, see page for sources of some.

    Very Important People has seen host Vic Michaelis interview an assortment of characters that really can’t be described in just a few words. From Vic’s Ex-Step Grandmother (Lisa Gilroy) to Mental Health Advocate Tommy Shriggly (Zac Oyama), every improvisor brought a uniquely wild energy to Dropout’s short formseries, matched by Michaelis’ ability to perfectly adapt to every situation while keeping up their host persona. After being given full makeovers—including makeup, prosthetics and costumes—comedians come up with a character to sit down for a fully improvised interview.

    (Deadline)

    unique interview series

    (Variety)

    A sort of elevated reboot of an older CollegeHumor sketch, Very Important People tasks improv comedians with giving spur of the moment interviews after sitting through some truly incredible makeovers: ones that throw costumes and even prosthetics at blindfolded guests, leaving them transformed into aliens, misshapen body builders and, occasionally, screaming cavemen. That leaves Michaelis as the host: a character also named Vic Michaelis, though here they're playing a journalist who is in no way, they stress, the same person as themselves. That unflappable cable access-esque character is drawn from Michaelis's love of TV personalities from Carol Burnett, to Mary Tyler Moore, to Lucille Ball: all the "very physical femme comedians."

    (CBC)

    Dropout loves improv, so what better than to gather the cast, give them complete makeovers, and have them interviewed by Vic Michaelis, where they create their character based on the makeover they were given! (...)Very Important People is hilarious. It lets the cast get into their element and do what they do best. There are so many unforgettable and hilarious moments throughout the show, from mental health advocates to the second pig of the three little pigs. The show has a vibe and a type of humor that you can not find anywhere else, and for that, it definitely deserves a watch.

    (Afterbuzz)

    an improvised interview show, for the Outstanding Short Form Comedy, Variety or Drama Series category, as well as submitting its host, Vic Michaelis, for Outstanding Actor in a Short Form Comedy or Drama Series.

    (134th St)

    We don’t often talk about the niche streaming services at ScreenHub, but I can tell you right now that Dropout is definitely worth your time and money. Featuring improv comedy shows, live DnD games, and unique game shows lead by some of the funniest people in the US right now, this rebrand of College Humour has some excellent and unique offerings that set it apart from other subscription services. My favourite of the bunch at the moment is Very Important People, a show where comedians are put in a mystery costume and must come up with a character on the spot, before being interviewed, in character, by host Vic Michaelis.

    (ScreenHub AU)

    Mulligan also recently appeared on Dropout's Very Important People where Vic Michaelis and another comedian sit down for a fully improvised interview. The comedian who is the guest on this talk show has had a complete make-over with costume, prosthetics, hair, and make-up all changed to create a character who they will have to originate backstory for on the spot. Mulligan joked about how he doesn't remember anything from his time as Augbert, but praised Michaelis.

    ScreenRant
    And I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:
  1. The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (checkY)
  2. The Variety article only has passing coverage ☒N
  3. The Deadline interview is non-independent ☒N
  4. The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (checkY)
  5. The Polygon article is non-independent ☒N
  6. The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) ☒N
That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards We may sometime actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.
(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)
~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update on this: The list for this year's awards has come out, and no Dropout productions were nominated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

criterion but some are commenting that the CBC interview alone passes the criterion. Is it a rationale AfD discussion? If so, then we have to accept many AfC drafts with single coverage. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Girls General Degree College, Ekbalpur

Government Girls General Degree College, Ekbalpur (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)

Unsourced since 2017. Can't find sourcing that can pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib Shahriar Ankon

Ragib Shahriar Ankon (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)

Product of BLP1E. dxneo (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Views to retain the page carry more weight than those to delete or redirect, not to mention being more numerous. Owen× ☎ 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoze Houndz

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the article also contains four other footnotes, from the Waterloo Record and the Ottawa Citizen and Maclean's, which you seem to be either overlooking or deliberately pretending they aren't there. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Six sources, same as last AfD. Not a slam dunk, but they at least confirm GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment....I concur with Donaldd23 and share his concern....six footnotes, yes, some from reliable media...but none of them seems to be focusing on the series except one (and only to mention it broadcast in Spain, which is significant but is it enough?)! One (Ottawa Citizen) is even an article from ...September 1998 (when the series premiered in October 1999....). (The article in The Record Kitchener is also dated from one month before 1st broadcast....) The Gulf News article just mentions the name of the series....And this cruel lack of content clearly shows in the article itself. And if the page cannot be expanded, a redirect is a better outcome....since when is the number of footnotes considered enough?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to QI#Other media. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News

QI News (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)

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zeta & Ozz

AfDs for this article:
The Legend of Zeta & Ozz (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)

Does not appear to be notable or pass WP:GNG. Not convinced the current citations are enough.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, with the "keep" votes talk about it being the first Chilean show on Cartoon Network, but not providing any sources to either back that up, or cite that it was signifigant enough to pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus#Drama series. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Indian TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013.

Previous AfD had no participants, so closed as no consensus. Let's figure this one out! DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Perumbavoor#Educational organisations with the option of merging useful content. There is clear consensus against a standalone list here, but consensus isn't clear on whether content should be merged, and to where. Given the short article, I believe that can be handled through normal editing procedures. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in Perumbavoor

List of educational organisations in Perumbavoor (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)

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. Can be alternatively merged to Perumbavoor#Education The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Labáthová

Jana Labáthová (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 are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Joseph

Alphonse Joseph (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)

Neither of the two entries is a compound given name. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia titled Alphonse Georges and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. As for Alphonse Joseph Glorieux, his French wikipedia article is titled Alphonse Glorieux, a newspaper article refer to him the same way,[11] and his English article says "Alphonse Glorieux was born on ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Heng

Donald Heng (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)

Contested WP:PROD, there has been two WP:BLAR and reverts, now I'm bringing it to AfD to gather consensus. The actor only had minor roles in multiple works, plus a slightly more significant role in Girl vs. Monster. Does not fulfill WP:NACTOR, I suggest a Redirect to Girl vs. Monster#Cast Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

TalentEgg (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)

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no "Independent Content" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing++ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G7 as author requested. Whpq (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

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

The article creator has a conflict of interest (declared in their page) for being paid by Fikra (ref 1 in the article), and this person, Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, is the CEO of the organisation. Going back to WP:NPOL, this person was the assistant chief staff to Sudan's PM, which does not meet the notability requirement for inclusion . Examining WP:SIGCOV, the sources in the article are mostly not about him. It is mostly about the program that he claims to be part of, for example, Ref(5) is about the project - Nafeer Campaign - itself, same for 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, etc. Also few refs are self-published, like ref 16 and 17. The "Political approach and views" section is purely original research, and I have tagged multiple instances of weasel wording and failed verification. Final thing, when looking for articles about this person in Arabic just to confirm coverage, I found negative coverage that is not included in the article (probably due to the author COI). For example, Fareid was convicted of domestic abuse, see 1, 2, 3 and 4. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try to focus on one Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Can probably be covered on Grays,_Essex#Secondary_education. IgelRM (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. After discarding the SPA/canvassed/sock votes, we're left without consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

AfDs for this article:
Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (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)

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    217.165.5.17 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum, where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.
  • Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
The nominator acts as if he owns Wikipedia content through determining what should be written and not written about him or according to his wish, he's hence abusing and misusing; in guise, several Wiki policies and contradicting the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). I am therefore convinced and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that this nomination was selfishly made in bad faith against the Wikipedia foundation Mission, Purpose and Terms of Use including Wikipedia:Assume good faith and deliberately violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies 217.165.5.17 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion.5.31.71.51 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)— 5.31.71.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The book should be retained due to its significant educational impact and recognition. The book has been independently reviewed and praised for its valuable insights on success and the importance of having a sense of purpose, as detailed in Eagle. Additionally, it has been recognized in Ugandan media, with Bukedde highlighting its influence. Moreover, the book won the "Business Book of the Year" award, as reported by Newslex Point. This recognition and its adoption by the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) for secondary school curriculum demonstrate its educational value and relevance, satisfying the requirements of WP:NBOOK. -- Macholi (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andries Mahoney

Andries Mahoney (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)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I would argue for redirect, but he is not mentioned in articles about the teams he played for. Passes WP:RU/N (played for Leopards (2006) and Griffons (2011) at the Vodacom Cup), but doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Except for statistics, I only found an interview with him [12] Tau Corvi (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Northern Marianas Open. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Northern Marianas Open

2024 Northern Marianas Open (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)

Yet another low level bwf tournament with little to no coverage in the news. Similar to the previous afd of 2024 Austrian open. zoglophie•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the winners are mentioned in the parent article Northern Marianas Open. zoglophie•talk• 06:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Martinus

Devon Martinus (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 am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sharks (Currie Cup)#Current squad. Delete. Meets WP:RU/N as a Sharks player, but I didn't find any signs of WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants that this is not a POVFORK and this article should be kept but could probably use additional sourcing if there is a bias present. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine

Islamic Association of Palestine (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)

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info:
Initial Merge Discussion
I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.
Information about the trial
The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.
Information about what the IAP
I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.
I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.
The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
  • [17] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First article seems fine.
    Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.
    Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.
    6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.
    matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.
    i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.
    I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.
    A review of his work on NYTimes
    "Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."
    Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
  • TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.
    There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 13:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Khan (producer)

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCER. The majority of sources cited in the article are sponsored content. I can't find any independent reliable sources about this producer yet.

The page was moved from the draft to the main space without any improvements, and the templates were removed without resolving the issues by the author. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Since this is a mythological subject, not a news story or a BLP, and many of the relevant sources are books which do not have online links, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and close this discussion as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Elephant

World Elephant (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)

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.
Cortador (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos (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, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alex Danvers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)

Alex (Supergirl) (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)

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.
JoeJShmo💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Real (TV channel)#Drama. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Hai Hum

Hindi Hai Hum (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, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Southern Ukraine campaign. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Robotyne

Second Battle of Robotyne (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)

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.
I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic

Calabar Chic (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:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.
  • Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: sourcing is fine, [19] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-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)

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-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)

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Editors are free to move this redirect. You might ask a page mover to do so unless you want a double redirect from Bucal, they can suppress a redirect for the redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bucal

Bucal (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)

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Generally unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source (2019 archived copy) does not back up the statement on the etymology of the barangay toponym. Much of the article is a directory of their establishments and landmarks: a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halang, Calamba

Halang, Calamba (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)

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source being used (Nov. 2018 archived copy) does not back up the claim of the barangay being "one of the richest barangays in the city". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Chile

Spicy Chile (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:NFILM; no WP:SIGCOV beyond the bibliography reference and the mere mention at IMDb. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesa Lea

Princesa Lea (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:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more, hopefully experienced, editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but additional sourcing would certainly be welcome. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy

Goodboy Galaxy (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//
According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum

Battle of Yang Dang Khum (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)

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Amato

Phil Amato (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:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountmellick Athletic Club

Mountmellick Athletic Club (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 notability (found little reliable coverage under the GNG, and clubs are not covered under the sports guideline) Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Still no takers for deletion, so it's keep for a second time. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast (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)

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
    This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.
    Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
    Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?
    There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
    Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?
    If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
    There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.
    I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed this as Keep but was asked to reopen this discussion so I have done so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It seems that the majority of participants see these two companies as separate entities and there is opposition to a Merge of the two similarly named companies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

Virgin Trains (open access operator) (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)

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless and until we know a lot more detail about the new plans it's impossible to say whether open access operators will be a feature of a nationalised railway (there are hundreds (at least) of possible structures it could take), but that's only tangentially relevant crystal ball-gazing. This is notable as a proposal (probably individually, definitely as part of a broader article) whether they end up ever running trains or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_7&oldid=1233160935"