Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 24	November 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn, speedy keep‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dixie & Anne Leavitt Family Foundation

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

This organization fails WP:NORG. The only source that is WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS is this NY Times article; the other sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([1], [2], [3]); WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]); or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). The article is also confirmed paid WP:PROMO. A WP:BLAR as an AtD was reverted by an IP, bringing us here. I propose a community consensus to restore a ~~redirect~~ to Dixie L. Leavitt; this will preserve the page history should additional sourcing emerge to support standalone notability under NORG in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Utah. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is lots of WP:SIGCOV accusing the foundation of corruption with finances. For example: [17], [18], [19] These added to the sources already in the article should pass WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep; will withdraw per 4meter4's sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 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!} 23:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Pichincha

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

Contested draft; in fact, it was moved to mainspace without improvement, and improved minimally. A before search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched in both Spanish and English, and the only sources that came up were a few passing mentions in google books and government websites or self published blogs. I couldn't find any usable WP:SIGCOV. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect/selective merge to Pichincha Province.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage. Vedicant (talk) 21:02, 2 December 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!} 23:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Neville

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

As other editors have pointed out, this article does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. The majority of the article is focused on his unsuccessful attempts at political offices and his views. Though he has been mentioned in some press, I don't believe this constitutes as WP:SIGCOV as its regarding their campaigning. TheBritinator (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. TheBritinator (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. He gets passing mentions in these books and journals: [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24]. He has some coverage in [25], [26], [27] He gets attention in this report: The use of racist, antisemitic and xenophobic arguments in political discourse by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. He clearly has been discussed for his controversial views on immigration and is a well known conservative voice in Irish politics. I could see an argument made either way on this one. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure he meets political notability, more of a spokesman. Could be re-creacted if he wins an election in 2024; otherwise, just a rather outspoken individual saying things that get attention, but not really doing anything we'd need for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons raised previously at Talk:Ted Neville and per the nomination. Namely that the subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL (has never held elected political office of any kind). And doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV (what coverage there is of the subject, it either relates to statements made in their political campaigning/electioneering/etc, and/or is trivial passing mentions [barely a mention of their name] in primary sources [minutes of debates/submissions] relating to their involvement in amateur sports orgs). Nothing we wouldn't expect for any other campaigning political activist/candidate. Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for inclusion. Vedicant (talk) 21:02, 2 December 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!} 23:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Dwivedi

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has been deleted twice before on wp:notability grounds. Of the references, the majority are links to something he wrote, one is a bio by his workplace, a few don't even mention him, and several have a brief mention, a single sentence quote or listing of him. The only reference that doesn't fall into one of the above is #13 (circa 11/25/24) which is a gazette medium length interview of him for Covid advice. North8000 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet academic notability (not a tenured position), not meeting GNG either, article just appears to be a CV at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Illinois, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another BLP that is original research, in the sense that it’s one good source, surrounded by a bunch of non-independent primary sources. How many times can an article be re-created before we say no more chances? Bearian (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt If this person ever becomes notable, the page may be unsalted. Fails WP:GNG, and the article interviewing him is covid, not the person per se, which doesn't really support his notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage. ~Promotional misuse of wikispace. Vedicant (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 2 December 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!} 23:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White River, Indiana

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

Here is why I don't trust Baker very far. The GNIS entry comes from a misread label on the maps: you can see that it's the wrong font for a settlement. Baker calls it a village but there is another town (East Mount Carmel) just to the east, actually on land even. This is seriously wrong and obviously not real. Mangoe (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of a community and the existence of the actual river complicates finding information about this. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of legal recognition needed for a GEOLAND pass, no evidence of a GNG pass either. FOARP (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear on topo maps until 1959: [28], and as nom said the font and formatting suggest a township and not a settlement. Clearly a lazy overinterpretation of GNIS used to pad out a fluffy, poorly-researched book. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable locale. TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 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. There's a clear consensus to Delete this article. If someone wants to work on it in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call a General Election

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

This is a really recent (literally ongoing as I write this) event (if you can call it that) and I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and realistically WP:NEVENT. A general election actually being called due to this is also vanishingly unlikely. In the event that happened, yeah, it would be notable, but as it stands, not really. Archimedes157 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The petition has attracted sweeping media coverage, and is statistically one of the highest petitions in the website's history. I think it has significance and shows some form of public opinion towards the government. Icaldonta (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOTNEWS, this is more suited for a Wikinews article. If this leads to an election, fine, but as of now it's just a news story. Literally dropped less than a week ago, may not even be a thing in six months. Way TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly just news unlikely to have lasting significance. At most there can be a couple sentences at Next United Kingdom general election. Reywas92^Talk 04:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has a row in the table at UK Parliament petitions website#Petitions with more than 500,000 signatures which is sufficient - only one other petition in that table has its own article (Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU petition) at present this falls under WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure a redirect is appropriate with the current wording. Orange sticker (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If more petitions had their own article, it would make sense to keep this page. The petition simply isn’t notable enough. Agree with above comments. DWMemories (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Unless the government resigns after six months and calls and election, this is of no lasting significance. AusLondonder (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I wrote this article because it has gained significant media attention. After reading more about the policies, I see how this is currently not notable enough to warrant an article. However, I suggest it could be moved to draft space for the time being instead of outright deleted since it will be debated on by parliament and could have lasting and more notable impacts. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recentism, can't see it passing WP:10Y. — Czello ^(music) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, will not have enduring notability JamesVilla44 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An online petition that's been hijacked by far-right troll Elon Musk and his army of bots isn't encyclopedic. Obi2canibe (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless claim. Troulson (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence of the power of media campaigns to get people to do something that takes a few seconds,costs nothing, and lets them claim some credit among those kudos among others who don't understand how democracy works. Will have no "lasting and more notable impacts" except, perhaps, the removal of the petitions site. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete petitions have been held on that site, garnered more signatures, and not lead to action. These petitions had coverage but no articles. Rankersbo (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above, and tidy. Bduke (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. It can be remade if anything comes of it (which it won't.) CR (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Self generated petition making the newspapers is surely the definition of WP: NOTNEWS doktorb _words^deeds 03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. At this point I would consider sending this article to draft space for the time being until there is a government response and debate in parliament. This article (if you ask me) clearly meets WP:GNG as there has been substantial amount of coverage of this petition amongst various WP:RSes, so I don't see why it needs to be flat-out deleted. 92.9.145.166 (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a soapbox at Hyde Park corner. We are not a social media site. We are not a newspaper. We are not a place for one’s personal opinions. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON. Encoded Talk 💬 14:45, 1 December 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 Blue Line (Namma Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HBR Layout metro station

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Train stattion that doesn't exist yet. Even if it existed already, train stations are required to meet GNG and there is not even 1 source that is even near GNG. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Line (Namma Metro). Most of the sources are about the Blue Line rather than the station itself. In fact, only two of the seven sources even mention the station at all. Only other sources I can find mainly mention the metro line. Procyon117 (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also noticing that most of the other stations with articles have the same format and basically the same set of references. Procyon117 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to line, standard procedure for station articles with no sigcov. Support doing the same for other stations on this line. Toadspike [Talk] 08:57, 2 December 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. asilvering (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattin

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep (thanks to sources found by 4meter4). However, the article does not reflect what is in the sources, and instead has a dopey list of collaborations which do not provide notability. I'll add a small amount but this article needs some serious work. Previously: I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). ~~I don't think this rises to notability at this time.~~ He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There is a detailed section on the artist extending from pages 88-97 in Graham, Stephen (2020). Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472902378. The same author covers the artist in a different and significant way in Graham, Stephen (2023). "Mattin and Burning Star Core/C. Spencer Yeh". Becoming Noise Music: Style, Aesthetics, and History. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781501378676. There is also coverage of him in Kim-Cohen, Seth (2016). "No Depth A Call for Shallow Listening". Against Ambience and Other Essays. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 131, 139-143. ISBN 9781501310348., Bey, Thomas; Bailey, William (2012). "Silence is Sexy: The Other "Extreme" Music". MicroBionic (revised and Expanded 2nd ed.). Belsona Books Limited. ISBN 9780615736624. His work is also engaged with in multiple chapters by different authors in Halligan, Benjamin; Goddard, Michael; Spelman, Nicola, eds. (2013). Resonances: Noise and Contemporary Music. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781441146137. There is also coverage/critical engagement of him as a writer on music in these journals [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], This book engages with him as both a musician and music philosopher across many pages. These in addition to the materials presented by Lamona are enough to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to add a very small amount (one ref) and did some copy editing. The sources, while some are substantial, are very post-modern, a language I do not understand. I hope someone can add more to the article. Lamona (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion by 4Meter4 and Lamona that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deltion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does still need a lot of work to the point where TNTing it is on the table, but I think it would be more constructive to just work with what we have currently DarmaniLink (talk) 09:30, 1 December 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. And for those who understand how to blacklist titles (I don't), feel free to pursue that option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Intercontinental titleholders

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

This pageant has been repeatedly deemed non-notable in over a dozen prior AfDs.

It's time for these recreations that flew under the radar to meet the same fate. And let's title blacklist too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page provides a detailed list of the specific competition, which serves as a valuable resource for those interested in the event's history and significance. The competition has received considerable coverage from reputable media outlets, underscoring its relevance and public interest. Additionally, the pageant has recently gained attention due to its growing prominence and the achievements of its notable winners. These factors collectively establish the notability and encyclopedic value of the page, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content inclusion. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:NLIST. While I do see coverage of individual winners in individual years in reliable sources, I couldn't find any coverage on this pageant as a whole (ie big picture), and along with that, I could find zero sources discussing the winners as a group or a set. We need at least a couple sources directly talking about winners of the pageant as a whole in order to pass our criteria for lists.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the recommendation to "Delete and WP:SALT" for several reasons. First, WP:NLIST does not strictly require coverage of the winners as a group or set if the pageant itself is notable and individual winners are notable. The list serves as an organizational and navigational tool, especially when individual winners have coverage in reliable sources. While it’s true that there may not be explicit sources discussing the winners as a "set," the consistent coverage of individual winners and the pageant across multiple years establishes a clear recognition of the group collectively. Secondary sources may not always explicitly address groups in these terms unless discussing specific trends, but that does not negate the relevance or value of the list. Moreover, the purpose of such a list is not solely to meet a narrow interpretation of WP:LISTN but to provide a comprehensive and accessible summary of verified information about the pageant's history. This aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of offering useful navigation and context. Instead of deleting the page, improvements could be made by better organizing existing sources, expanding the introduction to include commentary on the pageant’s significance, or adding historical context if relevant sources can be found. Finally, the suggestion to salt the page is premature and counterproductive. WP:SALT should be a last resort, used only when there is no potential for improvement. Deletion and salting overlook the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and the potential for incremental improvements. Addressing these concerns through constructive edits is a more appropriate and productive approach.🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says this comment is largely AI-generated.

And the viewpoint of people like myself is that there is no potential for improvement here, as the dozen prior AfDs have shown again and again and again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's concerning that this topic has been clearly gamed with the multiple article titles. I find the guidelines laid out in NLIST pretty easy to comprehend, a list may exist because the group or set is notable. The arguments made by Rc ramz are unpersuasive, especially their claim that the pageant itself is notable given the deletion history. Salting may be appropriate, and doesn't completely shut the door on improvement if that's what Rc ramz wants to take on; the procedures are explained at WP:SKYBLUELOCK. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and title blacklist "*miss *intercontinental" given the persistent evasion of community consensus. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the pageant itself (as opposed to routine tabloid coverage of winners), so it fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning on blacklisting the broader .*miss.*inter.*continental.* given an evasion at Miss Inter-continental. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and expand with Turkish sources; meets WP:NACTOR With various significant roles in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 10:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NACTRESS criteria 1 with multiple notable roles in looking at the Turkish wikipedia pages (which have many more blue linked TV/Film work because obviously the Turkish wikipedia is going to have better coverage of Turkish TV/film). Searching in google news there is lots of Turkish-language media coverage of this actress and her work; enough to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per all the keep votes above. Subject passes wp:gng, just dont have it as english sources. Kaizenify (talk) 23:59, 25 November 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 23:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeriq

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is the still an up-and-coming artist who has not been gain significant coverage to warrant a separate article. Some of the sources cited in the article are just press releases, others are unreliable blogs. The only promising source in the article, The Cable Lifestyle, isn't independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Sun Nigeria is a potentially reliable source, but none of the other references contribute to significant coverage. Maybe just too soon. Bearian (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can’t find what makes this pass WP:NMUSICIAN either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: MUSICIAN Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 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 Anglo-Saxon saints. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dachuna

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

contested PROD. a female Cornish Dachuna is only known from one singular mention by Hugh Candidus in a list of saints' resting places. i checked the Blair source as i have irl access to it, and the heading is "Summary list of late, non-English, or dubious saints who appear in the resting-place lists". according to Nicholas Orme's Saints of Cornwall,

The reference is presumably to Bodmin Priory, but no evidence survives from there about these saints, apart from Petroc. ... Dachuna is equally elusive in Cornwall, and a similar name in Ireland is male not female. ... In short, there is no certain Cornish context for these names; perhaps Hugh Candidus or his source conflated two places and ascribed saints to Bodmin who rightly belonged elsewhere.

there is no evidence that a female Cornish Dachuna ever existed. she is only known from one very dubious passing mention in a medieval source. fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some of nominator's reasoning/historical commentary is a bit misguided, a lot of prominent subjects rely on a single source, Beowulf for instance is arguably one of those. Whether the saint itself ever existed as a person, who knows, but the cult did; like arguing Zeus didn't exist so the god's article should be deleted. Even the nomination shows that the subject is of scholarly interest. The saint's cult and commemoration are recorded in one of the major sources of information we have for early English saints. The article is a stub and needs more work, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable either. Ironically if the nominator had expended the same energy expanding the article as trying to get it deleted it might not be a stub, some of the info used above could be in the article in expounded form. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying, and is entirely beside the point. there is nothing to add to this article, and there is no evidence beyond Hugh Candidus' brief mention that she existed and was buried at Bodmin, let alone that she had a cult or commemoration - scholarly sources, including the one you cited in the article, agree on that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what i'm saying I don't know specifically what 'that' means here, but everything I've said addresses the points you've raised. there is nothing to add to this article How do you know what can be added to the article? Your reasoning is misguided, just because there is only one source doesn't mean there is nothing more to be said. It's also clearly wrong as a statement, you could have added the quote above to the article, for instance, instead of using it here. Again, misspent effort. An established, culted medieval saint is intrinsically notable and there will be more scholarship, either material existing but unused or in the future. I find the logic and motivation here alarming, you would clear out so many important articles on Wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an "established, culted medieval saint". that is what the very sparse sourcing says - that this was probably a mistake on Hugh's part. and i know that there is nothing to add because i've looked for good sourcing on this saint, and have come up very short. Dachuna does not even have her own entry in the very, very thorough and authoritative Orme book, nor does she have any dedications, known feast days, or folklore. the only thing we know about this supposed saint is where she was supposedly buried, from one singular passing mention. please do not speculate about my motivations, either. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about. Because a commentator speculates that it might be a mistake by Hugh, that's not the last word, we do not have satisfactory let alone exhaustive source coverage of religion in 12th century Cornwall. Also if you did have any kind of expertise on Insular saints cults you'd know that they frequently spawn dopplegangers, gender changes, etc, etc, doesn't mean they are not notable. St Kentigern of Glasgow was likely a gender change, St Ninian of Whithorn is likely a doppleganger/invention (based on recent scholarship). Also, you've made your motivation clear, you are posting here because you want this deleted, right, what's there for me to 'speculate' about? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugh Candidus and add mention of these dubious saints there as an AtD. (edit conflict) I concur with Sawyer's assessment here that a full article on an almost certainly non-existent saint should not warrant an article when coverage has been so sparse and exclusively focused on the likely falsity of the original claim. However, saint articles have a tendency to reappear due to the general assumption of notability many editors believe they have. A redirect that indicates the spurious origin may stave off any misguided efforts to revive the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound patronising, but the source problems here and the historical issues surrounding the evolution of saints cults are very complex. Also, why would you redirect it to Hugh Candidus? Surely if you were going to delete it you'd just redirect it to List of Cornish saints or List of Anglo-Saxon saints?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, as I am a historian. You have managed to be patronizing and seem to be taking this AfD far too personally. Your redirect suggestions are inappropriate targets due to the unlikely historicity and singular reference of this purported saint. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking it personally at all. Why are the redirect suggestions 'inappropriate'? Listen, if you want to call yourself a historian because you did a history degree I'm not going to argue, but my points stands, these issues are specialised and complex, I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important....but unfortunately if you don't recognise it yourself pointing it out any further is likely to be a waste of time on my part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - especially if the information from Orme's Saints of Cornwall is added (which it should be). Yes, it's a sparse article, but that's not exactly unusual in medieval subjects. It is a bit of a borderline case, but yes, there does appear enough for me to consider this worth an article. I do not consider Hugh Candidus a good redirect target - that would imply that Hugh had some connection to this purported saint, where he is just the source. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it might be worth noting that you were canvassed (diff) for participation in this AfD? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my reply at Deacon's talk page - here addressing my knowing about this AfD before Deacon posted on my talk page. (I've long had Deacon's TP watchlisted - you might note the yearly Saturnalia posts that date back many years for him (and most everyone else where I have their userpages watchlisted) Ealdgyth (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, you are approaching this the wrong way, we are people with long-established interests in these articles. Ealdgyth isn't going to be 'canvassed' by anyone, let alone me. When I last checked she was one of the main contributors to articles on English Christianity. 10os articles in which she has an interest could be negatively affected by this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism on a relevant article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Your response is a bit ridiculous when you only !voted here after being canvassed, failed to acknowledge that, and have not !voted in an AfD in over a year (and only five in the last five years). @Deacon of Pndapetzim: you explicitly sought the aid of a friendly editor, which is canvassing. I'll take this up with WP:AN next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. I will mention the discussion to anyone I think might be interested, I had no idea if Ealdgyth would agree with me or not, I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you. If I'd wanted to perform some wicked evil conspiracy on you I could have emailed her or lots of other people & you wouldn't have had a clue, seriously get a grip . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the interest of fairness, i have added what little is available from Orme's book. i do not have access to the Jankulak book so i have no idea if there's more information in there. i stand by my nomination for deletion, however; i do not believe this is enough for a standalone article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Redirect What's in the article right now really looks like, at best, passing mention in a single book. I would suggest that, unless significant improvement can be made to citation quality, there's not enough here to support a separate article. It's never going to be more than a stub. Suggest merging any relevant information into Saint Petroc. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote to redirect. I'm somewhat on the fence about what would be the best redirect target. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petroc seems like a reasonable merge/redirect target to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single passing mention is not enough to establish notability, despite some votes based on hypotheticals provided above. You don't need to be a historian, despite what one user claims, to realize that a lack of sources is worth considering. I do not have any objection to a redirect given the provided context. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ATD, but not to Candidus or S. Petroc—where it would be UNDUE to contain what we have on a discrete saint, but rather to List of Anglo-Saxon saints, where Dachuna already has a slot. A list also created by The Historian™, so please present your diplomas on the door before commenting :) SerialNumber54129 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
didn't realize she already was listed there; i've been working on sorting out the Cornish saints topic, not A-S saints, so i hadn't noticed. i concur that that's probably the best redirect target ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 has raised a good question about whether Dachuna's origin there should be "British", "Anglo-Saxon", or "Saxon", which the learned historians here may be interested in weighing in on. CMD (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is a good question, and as a not-learned not-historian i have some nonsense to contribute. Orme says Dachuna's name, unique in Cornwall/England, is similar to some saints found in Ireland, but that connection may be purely superficial. as she's just a (dubious) name in a list, it's not clear whether she would have been Cornish (Celtic-speaking) or Anglo-Saxon. "British" would probably be the least OR-y. at the same time, whether the A-S saints list should only include standalone articles is another question - i'd probably say yes, but i don't plan on working on that list for the time being and it's a bit out of scope of this AfD. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawyer777:, I apologize for picking on your redirect suggestion! Was not meant to be a personal criticism at all. Sorry! SerialNumber54129 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh that's not at all how i read it! you're so good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to a different target than suggested thus far: St Petroc's Church, Bodmin. Every secondary source on Dachuna refers only to Candidus' passing mention, so the only thing we can verify about her(?) is that she was said by Candidus to be buried at Bodmin Priory, where she was an associate of Petroc. I've added a line and reference about Credan, Medan and Dachuna on my proposed target, so it's a suitable redirect. This avoids the WP:UNDUE problems of redirecting to Candidus or Petroc and the identification problems of placing a Cornish saint on a list of Anglo-Saxons. Regardless of where it's redirected, there's no plausible grounds to keep this as a standalone page. The sourcing would indicate "delete," but I think Pbritti is right that a redirect would help guard against well-intentioned efforts to recreate the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wasn't expecting such lively (can you call it lively?) debate about where to redirect this. i think you make the best case so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ealdgyth and noting that inclusion on the Candidus list is itself adequately notable. The article itself explains the limitations of the source material. For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. We also don’t seem to have anything like a “list of Saint’s resting places” on Wiki, which would actually be a somewhat plausible redirect to move the contents for stubs like this, but given we don’t, the content itself is worth preserving. Also must note we have already spent more bandwidth discussing this RfD than it is taking up on “teh wiki”. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For medieval women, there are never a lot of sources. that's just... not true at all. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SN. There seems to be simply not enough to write an article due to the one primary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Anglo-Saxon saints where the same content is contained pretty much word for word. We don't need to replicate the content in a separate page. Oppose redirect to St Petroc's Church, Bodmin and Hugh Candidus. 4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there's broad consensus to redirect. The question is to where. So far the suggestions are:

So I guess the question is which of these three redirects would be the ideal one? Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to List of Anglo-Saxon saints. As 4meter4 says, it's already mentioned there basically word for word. Procyon117 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Anglo-Saxon saints per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 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. There sure are a lot of words that could've been left unsaid here. Parties personalized the discussion and bludgeoned it with walls of text. At the end of the day, it comes down to which arguments have the most solid basis in Wikipedia policy, and that appears to be the delete camp. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Oliva

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

Fails WP: N. The only sources I could find about him are tied to the FSF, GNU, or make passing mentions of his name in routine coverage that is almost entirely about Linux-libre. Since notability is not transitive, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was dePRODed on the basis that he received a "prestigious award". This "prestigious award" is given by the FSF, which is an organization that the article and the PROD rationale makes very clear that he is a part of. Regardless, this was dePRODed without the addition of independent sources, so this goes to AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing for this person found, there is an author Alexandra Oliva, which isn't this person. I don't see any acceptable sources used either, as the nom explains. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oliva clearly meets items 1. and 2. of WP:ANYBIO ("has received a well-known and significant award" plus "has made a widely recognized contribution ... in a specific field"). The fact that he is part of the Free Software movement does not diminish the merit of his award in any way. It just stands as proof that his life-long contributions were acknowledged by his peers.

He is cited as reference or acknowledged in several books in a period spanning almost three decades:

Fourth International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems - Proceedings, by IEEE Computer Society (1998)
The International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, by Mohamed G. Gouda (1999)
Unix backup and recovery, by W. Curtis Preston (1999)
Windows to Linux Migration Toolkit - Your Windows to Linux Extreme Makeover, by David Allen (2004)
Backup & Recovery - Inexpensive Backup Solutions for Open Systems, by W. Curtis Preston (2007)
Actor-network Theory and Technology Innovation - Advancements and New Concepts, by Arthur Tatnall (2011)
Cybersecurity - A Self-Teaching Introduction, by C. P. Gupta, K. K. Goyal (2020)
Coding Democracy - How Hackers Are Disrupting Power, Surveillance, and Authoritarianism, by Maureen Webb (2021)
A Propriedade Intelectual do Software - análise histórica e crítica, by Rodrigo L Canalli (2021)
Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), by Yash Pratap Singh Narwaria, Dr. Maulik K Rathod, Anindita Dutta Roy, Tanmay Agrawal (2024)

He was one of the co-founders of Free Software Foundation Latin America [34] in 2005, and still is one of its board members [35]. As a promoter of free software, he has given dozens of lectures in Brazil (this governamental site lists just a few) and abroad. —capmo (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgements or mentions in books are not a measure of notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Do not throw random citations and random lectures at us and hope that one or two of them sticks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The award that you keep citing is tied to an organization Oliva is actively part of—it is not an independent honor and does not count at all towards notability. His membership in the Free Software movement does not establish notability either, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown absolutely nothing to demonstrate that WP: ANYBIO is met, but even if you did, the guideline very clearly states that "meeting one or more [of the standards] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Show me significant coverage from sources that meet WP: RS, or this content doesn’t belong here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Oliva also meets item 3. of WP:ANYBIO, having an entry at the National Library of Brazil [36]. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quit bludgeoning. This is not a "standard national biographical dictionary". It's a database of authors (who might have authored books that are preserved in the National Library?). Either way, it's certainly not biographical, because the page only contains the title of one work, and it's certainly not standard. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please come back to us with reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Or don't. You seem to be ignoring this request (or anything I have to say, for that matter), so I don't really know why I'm still entertaining any of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided is from the Brazilian National Authority Control, maintained by the National Library (Biblioteca Nacional, the bn in the link). Even the entry on Machado de Assis, one of Brazilian greatest writers, returns just a couple of lines [37]. What I'm trying to say with this is that in this case, length is no parameter for the subject's importance. Being in the list is enough proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill activist, writer, and graduate student . Bearian (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made up in one day award? This is ridiculous! It's the FSF Free Software Awards! Dozens of people and organizations (including Wikipedia itself, what an irony!) have been granted it. Are you going to propose the deletion of their articles too? —capmo (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained over and over again, in the PROD, AfD rationale, and multiple delete votes: the FSF award doesn’t establish notability because it’s from an organization that the subject is a board member of. Your behavior is rapidly devolving into bludgeoning. I'm asking you kindly to WP: LISTEN to us or let the discussion move forward. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're falsifying the facts to reinforce your arguments. He received his award in 2016; he only became a board member of FSF in 2019! I'll quote below a paragraph from the announcement so you can get your facts straight:

A longtime free software activist and founder of FSF Latin America, Oliva brings decades of experience in the free software movement to the FSF board. In the community, he is held in especially high regard for being the chief developer of the GNU Linux-libre project, a version of the kernel Linux that removes all nonfree bits from the kernel's source code, enabling users around the world to run fully free versions of the GNU/Linux operating system, and is a program of vital importance in the cause for software freedom. For his deep commitment and tireless work in free software, Oliva was the recipient of the 2016 Advancement of Free Software award given annually by the FSF. Aside from being a contributor to the GNU Project since 1993, Oliva is an accomplished public speaker and author on the importance of software freedom.

I really don't see the purpose in deleting an article on someone that's clearly notable in his field. You ask me to "listen" to you, but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Please do what you kindly suggested me and just let the discussion move forward. We already know your opinion, let's hear from others, please. —capmo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the very first sentence of your quote says that he founded FSF Latin America, which existed all the way back in 2005 (cite). He was affiliated with the FSF when he received the award, so the award does not count towards notability and the article should be deleted. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, accusing someone of "falsifying facts" because they disagree with you isn't funny. I was hoping you'd be willing to discuss this civilly, but those hopes seem misplaced. I'm telling you now, drop the stick. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOURTEEN EDITS in a row? Have you ever heard of the Preview buttom?? ;) You seem to be taking this too seriously, try to relax a bit! Now regarding your other question: FSF and FSFLA are "sister" organizations, completely independent from one another. Again you were proven wrong in your assumption. —capmo (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how this works. You don't get to accuse people of acting in bad faith and then pretend like you did nothing wrong by telling them to "relax" with a winky face. This page with FSFLA's constitution says that they "act in joint concert with the other FSFs (Free Software Foundations) to promote and defend Free Software". They're not independent. Again, thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep @HyperAccelerated I think your tone is bordering on WP:UNCIVIL, and frankly I think you aren't being receptive or fair to new evidence presented to you by capmo. Take it down a notch. You can disagree without being rude or combative. In looking at google books the book from MIT Press mentions Oliva and his 2016 award but unfortunately the coverage gets cut off and is not completely viewable: see page 291 He is also thanked for his contributions to several publications: [38], [39], [40]; and mentioned in this book on cybersecurity. Here are a few books he is cited in: [41], [42] (there are several more like these) I think this lends credence to A. the significance of the FSF Free Software Award (which is erroneously being dismissed as the subject was not attached to the FSF at the time of the award but worked for a separate independent sister organization) and B. Oliva's position as a well known figure within his field. What these don't do is demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. However, the national library entry, which HyperAccelerated in bad faith dismissed as WP:BLUDGEONING, is significant to the point that I think it pushes this into the keep category. A biographical entry (even a brief one) in a national library reference resource makes a person encyclopedic under the spirit of WP:5P1. Period.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for voting. I've been more than fair to capmo, especially since they accused me of lying without remorse. I'd be much nicer if they were new, but they've been around for 19 years and should know better. I also don't understand why you think I've acted in bad faith at any point during this AfD. Go to my Talk page if you think there's a problem -- I'm not going to litigate this here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FSF and FSF Latin America are not independent entities. There is a quote from FSF Latin America's constitution that I wrote above that shows that they operate in "joint concert" with one another. Aside from putting this sentence on a bright neon sign at the top of the Burj Khalifa, can you tell me how I can make it more clear that these two organizations are not independent? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The national library reference is a database. It is a directory, not a collection of biographies or an encyclopedia. It contains the name of one work that I assume Oliva wrote.

This creates a double-bind. Either:

1. BN is a database, not a biographical dictionary. It doesn't count towards notability.

2. BN is actually a collection of biographies and nothing that Oliva has done is notable enough to be put in his biography. That is a very strong signal we should delete this article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your sources appear to be mentions and don't demonstrate significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the National Library source. You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the process by repeating your arguments (see how I used that in the right context; ie a repeated opinion). I think I already made it clear that I agreed the sources don't constitute SIGCOV, so we agree there. I can accept your explanation on the lack of independence between the FSF and its sister organization, but the coverage in a book published by MIT seems to indicate the award has some prestige all the same. Unfortunately it is not clear whether that book has more to say on Oliva as the next page is not viewable. It may (or may not) have SIGCOV. This is a borderline call in my opinion, and I've modified to a "weak keep" based on your feedback. We'll see what others have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think I've bludgeoned -- the double bind makes a new point -- but I don't think it's important. Thanks anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion." You already made the same analysis on the national library source above. I can read the discussion. Repeating arguments made earlier after editors who express an opposing opinion is the specific behavior addressed on the bludgeoning page. I normally wouldn't have pointed it out (since you only did it once instead of repeatedly) but I wanted to draw your attention to the type of behavior one should look for when citing WP:BLUDGEON. When you cited it earlier, capmo was presenting a brand new source not previously examined. It wasn't a repeating argument, so it couldn't be considered bludgeoning. However, when you repeated your analysis of the library source after my keep vote, that is bludgeoning because it is a repetitive argument being made with a different editor. Understand?4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use this page as a platform to write about anything besides whether or not this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seriously: Stop the bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've read the wall of text above, and I'm still not swayed enough to change my !vote... Primary sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks to everyone who has jumped into the discussion, and to Doczilla for relisting it. Some editors have cited a lack of independent sources in the article. I'll try to fill this gap by presenting links from several sources that could help establish the subject's notability.
1. Oliva is cited on page 7 of the 2013 São Paulo State University entrance exam. An article written by him was used as the base text for questions 16 through 20 of the exam.[43]
2. SERPRO is the largest Information Technology public enterprise in Brazil; six of Oliva's speeches were given ample coverage on their website: [44]
3. Estadão and Folha are two of the biggest Brazilian newspapers.
  - This article by Folha from March 2000 cites Oliva, then only 26 years old, as one of the "main collaborators" in the free software movement.[45]
  - Another article by Folha about Microsoft's near-monopoly, from May 2007, where Oliva is asked to give his opinion on the subject: [46]
  - In this article by Folha from March 2010, Oliva is interviewed about his breakup with Google: [47]
  - This article by Estadão from July 2012 announces the beginning of the 13th International Free Software Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and lists Oliva as one of the speakers.[48] (requires subscription)
  - Another article by Estadão from March 2014 about alternative social networks, where Oliva is interviewed (among other people). [49] (requires subscription)
4. A document prepared by CTI Renato Archer, a research center maintained by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, establishes (page 27) a Special Committee to prepare the Information Technology Master Plan. On the following page, they present a list of specialists who may be invited to collaborate in the Plan (Oliva is the first name in that list). [50]
I could go on listing other similar links, but I believe that for now these will suffice. Regards, —capmo (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these sources. I get what you're trying to do, but I think the sources are even worse than the ones you presented before.

(1) is interesting but doesn't establish anything other than the fact that that his writings can be read by Brazilian high schoolers. By necessity, this standardized test contains a long quotation from Oliva and no direct analysis or synthesis.

(2) is not an independent source. Oliva spoke at a conference that SERPRO's employees helped run (cite; there's evidence Oliva spoke at this conference in link you shared), and then SERPRO wrote a press release about it. You can tell it's a press release because the articles are all attributed to "Serpro Social Communication" (translated). And even if you think this is total nonsense, lots of people give lots of talks each year, even if we only count ones at plainly notable institutions. Many are given by smart people, but not all of them are automatically notable.

(3) and (4) are mentions or interviews and don't establish significant coverage. Interviews aren't secondary sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed at the amount of time and effort you put into trying to discredit each and every evidence I bring here. Your analysis is again wrong: (2) IS an independent source, Oliva never worked for SERPRO, he was just invited as a speaker. And we're not talking about "one" single conference; there were three consecutive International Conferences on Free Software and Electronic Government in years 2008 to 2010; he was invited to all of them and gave a total of 6 speeches. Regarding (4), it's not just a "mention", it's an official document prepared by a governmental agency; they list 12 specialists that could be consulted, each from a different organization. Being in that list is an evident proof of notability. —capmo (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, half of the sources you've brought so far are trivial mentions of Oliva. It doesn't take that much time to point that out.

You have a twisted view of notability. "Gave a talk" or "mentioned in a list made by the government" doesn’t establish notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. Does appearing in a list of government contractors establish notability? What if that list was made by a local government, not a federal one? How about appearing in a voter roll? There are prescribed standards for notability, and the most important one is that subjects should receive in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. I am here to determine whether an article about Oliva can meet this standard and deeply uninterested in discussing whether he's met whatever weird standard of "notability" that you've cooked up.

If you are going to add more citations, please make sure they provide in-depth, independent coverage of the subject as prescribed in WP: GNG. Too many people think they can declare victory after spamming walls of authoritative-looking sources, and frankly I would be much happier if you gave me two plainly good sources instead of a dozen bad ones.

I also never said Oliva worked for SERPRO. Don't put words in my mouth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are the one twisting things. Oliva isn't in "a list of government contractors". He is in a list of respected specialists that could be invited to provide counselling on their field of expertise to a government agency. Quite a different thing! —capmo (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC currently, but from GScholar[51] he is lead author on papers with 75[52], 71[53], and 45[54] cites. For comparison, Larry Wall's The Perl Programming Language only shows 64[55]. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:33, 2 December 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a wrong understanding of what "Original Synthesis" is! As long as you are not adding unsourced interpretations or inferences to the data like claiming something that is not directly supported by the sources, this type of comparison is within the acceptable range of Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate the original synthesis rule. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf "why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India"–Both articles deal with wars in India over time, but they focus on different scopes. The two articles are not the same in content, although they partially overlap when discussing ancient history/war. The article in question is a specific subset of the India article, focused on a particular kingdom during a particular period in Indian history and India article is much broader in scope involving all territories that eventually became modern India, including the broader Indian subcontinent (modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other regions), covering a wider range of periods, regions, dynasties and also, the British colonial period, post-independence India, and modern conflicts. That's said, this article is not "Unnecessary". — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your points arent accurate there are other kingdoms who had different wars we some even more than Magadha, we wont make article for each. Edasf «Talk» 14:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but it’s not reflective of Wikipedia’s policies. There are no restrictions on creating articles as long as they meet the established criteria. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting critrea doesnt guarantee article like WP:Verifiability#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion Edasf «Talk» 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to this circles back to what I’ve already mentioned about why this article isn’t “unnecessary.” And also, your concern about "there aren't that much wars" being mentioned multiple times is irrational. Articles, whether they’re lists, stubs, or have limited content, shouldn’t be proposed for deletion simply because they’re short, WP:TOOSHORT. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Why isnt? Its to you to prove conclusively this article is necessary to me and even two other editors India one is quit fine and this isn't necessary to have an specific article for a single kingdom and just ignoring others. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an immature argument to make! This is a discussion, and reviewers are entitled to form their own opinions and vote accordingly. My vote is to keep, and I’ll stand by it unless you can provide a solid, rational reason for why this article should be deleted. Just because you and other editors share the same opinion doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree or consider it valid without proper justification. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing you well.Take example of Macedon there were atleast 20 wars involving it will you come create another article? Such types of articles are generally for present entities. Edasf «Talk» 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with Macedon or its wars, but relating that to the article in question, to support your argument that such articles shouldn’t be created is weak and all the questions about "Why should this be kept?" have already been answered, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself on that. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again and do you have source which states a synthesis between these? This article is an Original synthesis part of WP:OR Edasf «Talk» 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t wish to continue the discussion, as it keeps circling back to the same point "OR". About the references, it's quite extensive, and my apologies, but I can’t go into all the details right now, it would take more time to elaborate that here. The references listed in the article could be considered. Additionally, I’m just pointing out some similar articles to show that your proposal, claiming "such articles should not exist separately," is not valid. These examples are only meant to challenge the subjective reasoning behind your suggestion and are not relevant to evaluating the article based on the guidelines. List of wars and battles involving the Principality of Smolensk, List of wars involving the Principality of Tver, List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, List of wars and battles involving Galicia–Volhynia, List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, List of wars involving the Inca Empire, List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, List of battles involving the Sikh Empire.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I won't repeat myself points. Edasf «Talk» 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont compare medieval empires here Edasf «Talk» 09:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @JingJongPascal. On an additional note, the article seems to be extremely well-made and kept, and seems to be extremely useful. Also @JingJongPascal, you do not need to provide citations on the article, simply providing a link to battle/war would be enough. In case, a separate article for a particular battle/war doesn't exist, then you should add a citation. PadFoot (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. It would be good to see more policy-based argumentation referencing, for example, WP:LISTN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article appears well-sourced and in my opinion it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN. It mentions several notable wars, all of which are suitably linked (per PadFoot's argument). I see no reason to redirect it to List of wars involving India because this entry is significant enough to stand on its own.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Add content from here to the articles on the individual polities. At the very least the Gupta Empire should be removed. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I noted at the recently-closed nomination for the pseudo-historical Magadhan Empire article, trying to connect the disparate, non-contiguous states centred on Magadha is trying to push a POV not accepted in academic sources. The wars between the Magadha-Anga war of 540 BC and the Fall of Magadha in 575 AD have not been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (many of our articles even note this discontinuity—see e.g. the first paragraph of Later Gupta dynasty). Thus, I do not think this passes WP:LISTN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are nothing related to Magadhan Empire, its just a list of political entites ruling the magadha region. JingJongPascal (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such 'Magadha region' as of today nor there is a defined border of this region in the scholarly works. Moreover, you have created a 'List of wars involving the Magadhan Empire,' not a 'List of wars in Magadha.' There is quite a difference between the two types of lists. Had it been the latter, I would have gone for deletion. Garudam ^Talk! 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. The fact that certain lists overlap is not a valid reason for deletion. Content often does overlap, but information can be organized in valid and different ways or have subtle but different foci that make them viable separate articles. Ultimately, the delete views here boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions because the sourcing is here to support this list.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have edited the article to remove more mentions of the deleted Magadhan Empire page. Now this article is based on wars involving 'polities' or 'dynasties' that ruled Magadha as sovereigns.

See List of monarchs of Magadha. JingJongPascal (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, the article is poorly written. I did quite a bit of cleanup and copyediting, but much still needs to be done. That said, it should be kept as a standalone list article, as long as it does not go beyond the Kanva dynasty, since the sources define it as ending there. Garudam ^Talk! 22:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about polities based in magadha, not exclusivly the "Magadhan Empire". JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the article should not exist in the mainspace. There is no current entity known as "Magadha", nor are its borders clearly defined in scholarly works. Instead, the focus should have been on the historical conflicts involving Bihar and Bengal, similar to how the List of battles in Rajasthan covers present-day, defined regions. I would be sticking my vote. Garudam ^Talk! 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of France doesnt exist either.

Ottoman Empire doesnt exist either.

Soviet Union doesnt exist either. JingJongPascal (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. You do not know what you are talking about, try to differentiate between Mauryan Empire and Magadha. You are comparing those historical entities with Magadha instead of Mauryan Empire. Garudam ^Talk! 11:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maurya Empire is actually a dynasty,it's called Maurya Empire due to COMMON NAME JingJongPascal (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Magadha is a separate historical entity in its own right with its own history and hence a list of wars to reflect that entity is perfectly justifiable. Just as we have a separate article for wars involving the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey.Ixudi (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vaguely described. Just as we do not need a List of wars involving Anatolia, there is also no place for List of wars involving Magadha. You do realize there is a difference between historical entities (Anatolia & Magadha), modern-day entities (India & Turkey), and empires (Ottoman & Maurya)? We can have the lists for the latter two, but not for the historical regions (as far as their borders are not defined). Garudam ^Talk! 18:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam Please justify your points based on Wikipedia’s established policies rather than subjective phrases like "we do not need" or "there is no place for." Any article that serves an encyclopaedic purpose and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines can be valid. While I respect your experience on this topic, it's important to remember that reviewers who are less familiar with the subject will evaluate the content solely against Wikipedia’s criteria and so consider referencing specific policies to substantiate your remarks. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor Basically this list is based on a deleted POV forked article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magadhan Empire) which is full of pseudohistorical and fabricated claims of JingJongPascal, they are terribly doing such POV ridden edits. The issue of WP:HOAX remains as it over inflates "Magadha Empire" to include the Gupta Empire. Neither is there notability nor scholarly consensus on the extent of the Magadha region or its borders. Therefore, it is unwarranted to create a list based on Magadha, which has not even been properly mapped to this day. Moreover, there are no modern academic sources or scholarly consensus explicitly stating that such a singular entity existed continuously for over a millennium, from 544 BCE to 579 CE. Garudam ^Talk! 13:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't related to "Magadhan Empire" article (atleast not anymore), it's just a list of wars involving political entities based in Magadha, no idea what is so hard to fathom in this, also stop with your false claims of "pov" please. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I mentioned it is a continuous political entity? All I have done is categorise it into two time periods - Ancient and Classical. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Magadhan Empire article wasn't created by me, what is even your point? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garudam Based on a shallow research I made considering your comment, the claim that Magadha includes the Gupta Empire is a bit misleading. While they shared some geographic overlap, they were actually two separate empires with distinct histories. The idea that there's no scholarly consensus on Magadha's borders and Magadha hasn't been properly mapped isn’t true either, scholarly sources might be available/documented offline (or found online with an extensive research) considering the Magadha's significance in ancient Indian history, though exact borders may have fluctuated over time, as with any ancient kingdom. Finally, it’s true that Magadha didn’t exist as a single empire continuously from 544 BCE to 579 CE, different dynasties ruled the region over time. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I understand what you're trying to say; however, only early Magadha has been traced to this day, and it roughly corresponds to south Bihar moreover sources differentiate between the regions of Kāsi, Vanga and Magadha. I would advise JingJongPascal to consider reading the sources more diligently. Garudam ^Talk! 17:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that matter? Especially when we are talking about political entities, Even "Bihar" has changed over time, it included Jharkhand before but now doesnt.

The extent of the region doesn't matters. When the kings claimed themselves as "Magadha-Raja". JingJongPascal (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it seems you dont have any prior knowledge about magadha. Magadha is a region as well as a political entity.

And 'Classical Magadhan Polities' is not a political entity but a time period to make the list easier for readers. JingJongPascal (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JingJongPascal, the initial author of this page has been topic banned [56] from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles. Garudam ^Talk! 12:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewers: Upon reviewing the discussion, there is a strong emphasis on the "significance and importance of the Magadha Empire." The debate centers on whether it deserves an article, despite the rich documentation of other dynasties in Indian ancient history, such as the Mughal, Gupta, which are extensively covered and recognized for their importance. Comparisons have been drawn between Magadha and these larger, more defined empires to argue against its relevance. However, the issue shouldn't be about questioning Magadha's historical significance, which is well-established, but rather about how it should be represented in Wikipedia and what encyclopaedic value it offers. Regarding the deletion comments, many arguments seem flawed as they focus on why the article shouldn't exist rather than providing valid reasons for deletion based on Wikipedia's standards. This is reminiscent of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. I also noticed that some users involved have a history of conflicts in other articles, which may be influencing their opinions here, this space should not serve as an outlet for those disputes. The article seems to satisfy WP:NLIST, particularly as it provides an oversight of wars involving Magadha. Therefore, the focus should be on how to properly present the empire within Wikipedia, not on dismissing its historical relevance.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:47, 2 December 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!} 23:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert van Boggelen

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

Has been interim chair of an union and a political party, but relevance is not supported by reliable secondary sources (as far as I could find). Dajasj (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Dajasj (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. In the past seven years or so we’ve deleted hundreds of articles about political party officials and unsuccessful candidates. This is just another one. Bearian (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are primary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Rees-Evans

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

Lack of sources, no major news coverage since 2017. PlateOfToast (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. PlateOfToast (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet wp:politician, not enough wp:sigcov Orange sticker (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:TNT. 1. More than 90 % of the text on this page is completely unsourced. 3/4 of the rest is sourced to his own personal or professional interests. That’s not acceptable in 2024, and would earn a failing grade if submitted as a college essay. 2. This is so transparently an advocacy page, not an article, that I don’t think anyone would contest it. 3. We have spent years deleting hundreds of articles about political activists that the consensus is unlikely to change. 4. Everyone is against child abuse; there’s zero evidence that he’s done anything useful about it. 5. Finally, this page is a hot mess unlikely to be fixed by ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 29 November 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 Joanna Lumley. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barlow (conductor)

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

Appears to have received coverage primarily as Joanna Lumley's husband, without much discussing his career or anything else outside of that relationship, thus I can't say I see notability here. A redirect to Lumley's page seems appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Redirect: I found a lot of reviews for artistic direction of opera productions suggesting clear WP:NCREATIVE notability before realising that was Stephen Barlow (director). I can't find sufficient RS reviews of this one's King or Rainbow Bear or other work, though it's possible that there's coverage offline, and the flood of links for the other one and their opera overlap make searching online difficult. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting non-admin close, and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity. This deserves a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete: Online searches do not turn up sources that meet the threshold of WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Redirect target article are you proposing, User:Hydronium Hydroxide and User:CurryTime7-24? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Joanna Lumley, per nom ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:53, 1 December 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 procedural close‎. Redirects are not discussed at AfD, but at RfD. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MeTV Plus

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

An alternate redirect was created a while ago MeTV+ and I blanked the page and is now unneeded. OWaunTon (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - this has never been an article, it has always been a redirect. Therefore, WP:RFD is the correct venue. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Wrong venue, and this redirect is a perfectly plausible search term – it's even used on MeTV's official website. No way this would be deleted even if taken to RfD. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 25 November 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. Consensus to keep after the changes introduces since nomination. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All singing, all dancing

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

Fails GNG, lacks significant coverage. The article consists of a dictionary definition already better covered at wikt:all singing, all dancing, along with some trivia about shows on which the phrase has been mentioned. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ but without prejudice to its being recreated if someone finds more interesting sources for it. I am in favour of keeping at least some of these idiom-articles (currently we've got a whole load nominated) because in many cases the idioms have an interesting cultural history and are well-sourced, but this one is too thin and strays over the line into mere dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does seem to be pretty threadbare, and it's hard to think of how there could be good sources for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Keep per the details and sources added by Bearian. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All Singing, All Dancing could be a valid redirect target. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and just delete, not redirect. This seems more appropriate to Wikitionary than to any Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. While originally it meant only one thing, the meaning and cultural significance of the phrase has changed over 150 years. I’m still working on it, but I’ve greatly expanded the stub and added many reliable citations. There are whole books and films dedicated to the subject. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-pinging Elemimele, Spiderone, Chiswick Chap, (Oinkers42), and Darkfrog24. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do any of them perform in-depth criticism of this expression specifically?

Smaller issue: I don't see whether is this a pan-English expression or specific to American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one reference that calls it a British idiom. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY due to Bearian's additions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; Bearian's additions have not only improved the article, but his sources show the topic passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to strike my delete; it's a teeny bit essay-ish, but the article is much improved, and certainly no longer a dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 09:38, 2 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanta Nagakawa

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

Player unfortunately fails WP:GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails every policy. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:33, 27 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanne Guillou

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

Player unfortunately fails WP:GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not at all enough references in article (fixable), notability is not shown. There might be a scarce amount of references. Does not meet the Notability Guideline. (Wp:GNG) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, France, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman - To my suprise, sources have been added to the article! RossEvans19 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooldudeseven7 @Demt1298 @Svartner @Spiderone Not sure if this is how it works (im still very new to nominating articles) but im pinging all involved with the deletion discussion now that sources have been added. Thanks, RossEvans19 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the 'Frech-Antilles.fr' website, is that independent or is it government? Giant Snowman 17:52, 29 November 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. No valid rationale for deletion presented. WP:CSD#A10 does not apply. Existing content in the draft can be added into this article. Nthep (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Rajesh Kothe

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

There's already a page created with the same name since 20th-November-2024, with much detailed research and details.

This is the page to discuss why this new page need to be allowed over the old page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Devendra_Kothe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohit Gandmal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (WP:SNOW) — a draft article existing is not a reason to delete an article. If the draft is accepted the two articles can be WP:MERGEd, but much of the content in the draft is improperly sources and/or non-notable details. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ahecht!

As per the Wikipedia rules.

Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope.

If a duplicate article was recently created, it may also be a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD A10 criteria.

WP:MERGEREASON

WP:OVERLAP

WP:DUP

We can abandon the discussion altogether if we collectively are not willing to abide by the original Wikipedia rules.

Logically, we should also get it clear that, does the arbitration favours the duplication or keeping up the original article, which has been put so much effort in to.

If duplication is what we are supporting above, what's already framed rule, then we should abandon the discussion altogether. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohit Gandmal CSD A10 does not apply to drafts. WP:MERGEREASON/WP:OVERLAP/WP:DUP does not require a page to be deleted, especially when one of the pages is a draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 25 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Mehraj

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as tagged. No changes since previous draftification by @BoyTheKingCanDance: ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:NPROF. Kazamzam (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a very obvious case. Postdoctoral researcher with an h-factor of 12 with 517 cites, no awards, not even close. Note that there appears to be a COI as this looks to be autobiographical. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creator has same name as title, obvious COI going on here. Procyon117 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a now retired academic in several countries, it is quite clear to me that this WP:NPROF is no way near deserving an article. Bduke (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, and WP:SALT. I’m not going to rehash the analysis above. In 2007, academic people would make jokes about editing their own Wikipedia “page”. In 2024, everyone knows we are not FaceBook. If he becomes notable in the future, which is iffy in today’s market, then we (not him) can politely ask an administrator to re-create his article. Bearian (talk) 06:50, 29 November 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) — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your Ps and Qs

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

dictionary definition of an English phrase with speculation about its etymology, cited to primary sources. wikt:mind one's ps and qs accomplishes what this is trying to do much better. and rightly so, for Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup. valid Wikipedia article. --Altenmann >talk 16:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, there's nothing much wrong with the article, and it's certainly an encyclopedic topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a grey area that's hard to sort between here and Wiktionary. The test is whether this is merely an (etymological) dictionary entry WP:DICT. My feeling is that where the social/historical interest in a phrase's origin outweighs the linguistic information about how it's used, it's possible to have a social/historically-biased encyclopedia entry. This doesn't preclude having a linguistically-biased dictionary entry in Wiktionary. It's not either/or. This particular phrase is interesting enough, and sufficiently sourced, to pass. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's statement that the wiktionary page "accomplishes what this is trying to do much better" is incorrect. The Wikipedia article is much more in-depth. Toughpigs (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. A search on Google books would have been appreciated. Bearian (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elemimele's argument. Toughpigs (talk) 16:35, 29 November 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Recordings

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The blabbermouth piece is churnalism annoucing so and so has signed up with this company. The level of coverage on this company fails to satisfy NCORP. The article was created by a single purpose one time editor and edit history on the article suggests plenty of public relations editing activity Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Norway. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete, barring any coverage by Norwegian media that I might have missed. It's close to notability, as I found this magazine profile. The other two references - this and this I'm not sure count as significant coverage. So, for now at least, delete--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Tagged for a year. --Altenmann >talk 16:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find a few sources, but it appears the label no longer exists as an independent entity anyway... [57]. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 28 November 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. Nom + 2 supporters for delete provide nearly no explanation aside from vague assertion that it "appears to fail" (please see WP:AVOID) although one does make a more specific statement regarding inability to find substantial coverage. 1 keep !vote makes more of a case. 1 redirect offers nothing based on policy or guidelines. The AfD has already been relisted twice without real improvement. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [58], [59], [60], [61]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NALBUM. Sources presented aren't convincing. I can't find the substantial coverage required. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Igor (song): as suggested by Mika1h. Seems like a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 2 December 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 deans of St Asaph. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Williams (priest)

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

Low-level religious figure. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Created by an editor now blocked from mainspace for poor-quality content creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Wales. AusLondonder (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of deans of St Asaph as ATD absent any GNG-meeting coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making the above final choice in light of recent comment. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning keep. There is a brief article on his installation, with a little biographical material (Bishop to install cathedral dean. Western Mail p. 6, 14 Sep 2011), and also some material about his wife (Bissett, Daniel. Diocese at 'a low ebb'. Daily Post 26 June 2015: 4) which while it does not speak to his notability, provides a bit of usable background. He's quoted quite a bit in the national and regional press (eg Cathedral's gender-neutral lavatories. The Daily Telegraph 19 Jan 2018: 12; Bishop calls for removal of Stanley tributes. The Daily Telegraph 15 June 2020: 5; Darren Devine. New panel to probe the future survival of Wales' cathedrals: They resonate with an architectural splendour that ensures their appeal extends beyond believers. But after surviving for well over 1,000 years how can the nation's cathedrals endure in a Wales where Christianity is in decline? Western Mail 30 Dec 2015: 17; £500K cathedral campaign launch. Daily Post 18 July 2013: 17. Powell, David. Cathedral in £300k extension initiative: COMMUNITY USE BOOST BUT CAUTION ON BISHOPS' GRAVES. Daily Post 24 May 2013: 14, and also some from The Sun and The Daily Mail, which aren't reliable but suggest widespread coverage). Not seeing a pressing need to delete this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect; fails GNG. Espresso Addict's arguments are not particularly convincing to me; those are largely passing mentions or quotes (i.e. not independent). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comment "Not seeing a pressing need to delete this article" is particularly odd. What's the point of AfD if not deleting articles that don't meet our standards? AusLondonder (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a generational difference. It certainly used to be the case that articles defaulted to being retained, and the nomination for deletion had to make a case for deletion. I'm not seeing one here. The article does not appear promotional or contain anything that is likely to be objected to by the subject, and is fully referenced to reasonably reliable sources, most of which are independent of the subject and St Asaph's. I have additionally provided evidence that the subject has been covered or quoted in the press both locally and nationally, suggesting that "low-level" may be a misrepresentation, and the position of Dean of St Asaph is a reasonably important one in Wales and possibly across the wider UK. Anyone being quoted by The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph is not a private low-profile individual. So, with my admin hat on, I am not seeing any pressing need to delete this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 26 November 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!} 08:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cemetery

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

this discussion in rfd was closed as restore, when it should have been closed as restore and send to afd. same rationale applies for my vote, which is delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when narrowed down to Byron Cemetery + Wyoming search results, there are less than 100 Google Search results, indicating lack of prominence, as well as eight Google News results, most of which are obituaries, except this which just says there was a Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery in 2015. Concrete evidence of WP:GNG needed. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no coverage. --Altenmann >talk 16:07, 25 November 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Law Library of the Maldives

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

No notability and no information about the law library, as well as no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilandofma (talk • contribs) 13:38, November 25, 2024 (UTC)

del per nom. --Altenmann >talk 16:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can find no source, let alone reliable. Not to be confused with National Library of Maldives which was established earlier and still seems to have references and mentions available. The extreme lack of details on article (not even an area code/coords/managing organization) makes it extremely difficult to scrounge back anything of value. Nisingh.8 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Law, and Maldives. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 25 November 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 Netmarble. The only comment suggesting keep is not based in any policy. Malinaccier (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netmarble. Agree with nom that Jackpot World is poorly covered in RS, failing WP:GNG. Developer is covered, although questionably well enough for an WP:NCORP pass, but in any case doesn't have an article, so redirect to parent company of developer. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look shows that the Netmarble article doesn't mention SpinX, but it easily could: [62] [63] [64] [65] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. After careful consideration, I also agree that "Redirect to Netmarble" makes more sense. JulieBole (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've played this game for years and I think it should be kept. It was released by the publisher before it was acquired. 42.200.218.17 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. You might like to put 'keep' in bold at the front of your message to better signal your vote on the deletion discussion. It isn't necessary but can help to provide a policy reason why you vote one way or another in a deletion discussion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:18, 25 November 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 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Šembera

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

Non-notable sportsperson. The sources describe his accident, which left him paralyzed at the age of 16, and how he lives with the consequences, but do not document any achievements or any other reason for having an encyclopedia entry. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there appears to be sources but many are in foreign language and failed to translate properly for assessment. Those familiar with the language may search for sources. Mekomo (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even if he is/was related to Michal Šembera, the article may still fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Although it's possible foreign sources exist, we can't assume that to be the case. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 25 November 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 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mounts, Indiana

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

Here again we have some citation abuse, because the "whistle stop" line doesn't come from the county history; it comes from Baker. The page in the county history doesn't mention the place at all, just the person. Meanwhile Baker, yes, promotes this to a village, and again there's just no evidence on the ground for that. It's just another isolated station, as far as I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no concrete evidence of a community, and the generic name complicates the ability to find WP:SIGCOV information on the topic. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing at the location. Not verifiable. Appears to have been no more than a station/post office. FOARP (talk) 20:31, 30 November 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 Deleted as WP:G12 copyvio‎. Diannaa (talk)

Honorary Consul of Japan in India

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS; article is purely a press release with no independant showing of notability. CoconutOctopus talk 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and India. CoconutOctopus talk 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Garudam ^Talk! 13:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional piece. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this now. 2402:A00:401:5A09:FA91:F145:73CA:AD38 (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. In a WP:BEFORE search I can only find press releases about his appointment, and anybody can be an honorary consul. Here in the UK, sometimes travel agents will set themselves up as honorary consulates to provide visa services for countries with few consular offices outside of London. My first thought was that this was yet another post of salted Mukesh Patel of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Patel (2nd nomination) fame, but there doesn't seem to be anything to connect the two businessmen. I've just redirected copypaste Honorary Consul of Japan in India Mukesh Patel back to the original. Wikishovel (talk) 11:50, 26 November 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 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penman & Greenwood

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

Nearly-incomprehensible article about a Daily Mirror column. No citations, all external links are dead. WP:BEFORE turns up only WP mirrors and a couple of archived examples of the column, but nothing about the column or its authors. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's this, in the Press Gazette, but it ain't enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination rationale. there are no sources out there to build it. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. An article about scam-busting in British media could be written, but this isn’t even in the King’s English. Bearian (talk) 07:00, 29 November 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) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf in sheep's clothing

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of etymology better fitting for Wiktionary, loosely thrown together trivia about literature inspired by the phrase, and uses of the phrase to describe the phenomenon of zoological mimicry, which already has its article. None of it is encyclopaedic, all of it can be (and is) better mentioned elsewhere. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Animal, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could be convinced to keep the article if it were retitled and trimmed down to focus on the "wolf in sheep's clothing" as a literary device, because I'm sure sources for that could be easily found (that part of the article is good). But as it stands the article is an inherently OR assembly of concepts with no evidence that they have all been linked together by an external source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF - simple as that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree WP isn't a dictionary but this article has some encyclopedic value. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has encyclopedic value as it's a popular idiomatic expression and this is evident in the average number of article views per month at around eight thousand. It only needs working on to remodel it within the scope of its title. Mekomo (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a consideration of a large body of literary fables inspired by the original figure of speech. Where I would agree is that the title is unfortunately titled, making the article appear to be focussed on the figure of speech. It might function better if it were rewritten under a composite title like, for example, The wolf in disguise. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is expressly about the phrase, and is titled correctly for that. A separate article on the literary trope might be viable, but this is not that article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - okay, I see going back into the history, it was created as an article on the fable. The current pretty much says that the original is incorrect, and the fables aren't by Aesop, but are based on the phrase, not the other way around. The edits have also substantially altered the scope of the article. Would it make sense to change it again to be about the fables, or should a new article be created about the trope (a broader topic)? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has encyclopedic value as a widely recognized idiom with significant cultural, historical, and literary relevance. It originates from biblical and fable traditions, and this phrase has transcended its initial context to become a universal metaphor for deception and hidden malevolence. I suggest including more about the cultural and societal implications of this phrase. However, minor issues can be resolved without deleting the entire article. DocZach (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- wikt:wolf in sheep's clothing already records where it originates from; dictionaries also record etymological information. It's use (not origin!) in fable traditions is also akin to myriad art and literature that are often based on this or that phrase, collecting all that on one page on the phrase is essentially trivia. People often use phrases as metaphors, yes, that's what they are for. Collecting a bunch of sources *using* a phrase, without any *mentioning* it, or describing it in more detail than a dictionary definition is not enough for an encyclopaedia. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. I would also argue that the article is encyclopedic, since as an idiom it warrants more coverage than a mere dictionary entry can provide.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify how exactly it meets GNG? Which sources contain significant coverage of this phrase? All I see are passing mentions, usage of the phrase, and dictionary definitions. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major topic. It meets GNG the usual way, with multiple, independent, reliable sources. The zoology sources alone demonstrate its notability, but the article goes into much more depth than that on its literary side. It far exceeds a dictionary definition, to put it mildly. Nom argues in this thread that the article is (only) about the phrase, but that is not so: it is about the uses made of the phrase, an encyclopedic subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The zoological sources are about aggressive mimicry. We already have that article. These sources use the phrase in question, *in passing*, to describe that phenomenon. Using that to cobble together an article on the "uses of the phrase" is pure synthesis and original research. We do not have any significant coverage—none has been demonstrated—evidence free assertions otherwise should be discarded. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ş agrre with him 94.54.9.25 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a WP:DICDEF. Meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above discussed. I’m genuinely confused as to why this would be nominated for deletion at all. Bearian (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing sources. Toughpigs (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DocZach summarised it well. There is greater value than just a definition, with significant coverage to meet notability requirements.Triplefour (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 1 December 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 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantamath

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

A regional math competition article with no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wanted to save this and went out in search of sources but nothing was found. It fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 16:07, 25 November 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 11:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Rawat

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

The same reason applies as it did for Lakhan Singh (cricketer). I do not believe the subject meets the WP:GNG criteria. Furthermore, there is no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) available about the subject's career as a cricketer, which directly fails the WP:NCRIC. Additionally, the article's creator is currently blocked. Baqi:) (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of SIGCOV couldn't warrant a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few brief mentions in Times of India match reports [66], there appear to be more mentions in the archive of The Hindu [67] (although someone who is a subscriber needs to see what level of coverage is present in these articles).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 28 November 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) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan into the fire

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICT. The article was deleted twice before, in 2006 and 2008 respectively, over the same concerns. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: The article is not "substantially the same" as earlier versions, as the proposer claimed in his original notice. It has been widened in scope to include fables based on the figure of speech, the original history of which is rightfully considered too on that account. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an encyclopedic subject supported by multiple reliable sources: more are certainly available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These "multiple reliable sources" are five different online dictionaries defining the term, and then some articles talking about mediaeval fables based on similar proverbs and idioms. None of it is significant coverage of the phrase, none of the content here is encyclopedic. Significant coverage has to be demonstrated, mere assertions to the contrary are not enough. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:08, 25 the 2024 (UTC)
  That's not right, nor is it advisable for AfD noms to attack any opposition. All the sources in the article appear to be reliable; whether the dictionary sources establish notability may be moot here, but the other sources certainly do. In general, notability is demonstrated by sources in the world; it is convenient for everybody if these are written up decently and placed in the article, but that is not the criterion for notability. But I'll have a look at the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of the 13 sources listed, only 5 are dictionaries. There is an external link to the Wiktionary definition, but it is not used as a source. Nice image used under the Uses section. — Maile (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above discussion. I’ve reached out to the nominating editor on their talk page, as have two others, about their confusing nominations. Bearian (talk) 07:10, 29 November 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!} 08:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Milano

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this young rugby player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:17, 25 November 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. Consensus edges to keep per sources provided. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the piss

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry at Wiktionary already exists. A previous AfD nomination with the same rationale closed as keep, but the arguments presented for keep there seem to be of the "I like it" variety. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, South Africa, Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed that WP shouldn't be a dictionary, but unlike Wolf in sheep's clothing above, this article at least does cite sources discussing the phrase and its origins and use, without the SYNTH. Could probably be trimmed down to a description and a few examples, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst not a dictionary I believe this article has value beyond providing a definition for the phrase, including basic etymology and cultural significance across multiple countries. Current refs aren't exhaustive but provide a decent foundation to why this may meet notability standards.Triplefour (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionaries also provide basic etymology and general information about usage, whether it's British, Irish, American, etc. That's what Wiktionary does. Some of the article is also OR. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that article does look like an encyclopedic entry about the phrase as opposed to a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair bit of original content and uncited or poorly cited content has been removed since the preceding comments were made. I don't know if that shifts any of the opinions. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has encyclopedic value backed up by references and does not represent a mere dictionary definition. Schwede 66 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources that actually discuss the term are dictionary definitions. The rest of the references are just: 'hey look someone used the term here'.

There are no sources in the article showing this has passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this isn't a dictionary. Additionally the first part of the "Origins" section feels to me like it is itself taking the piss. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reason given by Schwede66 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilman (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. The nomination is one of a series that has overwhelmed our processes. We’re still working on the November 2024 citations drive and I have been working on finding sources for another article that I’m trying to rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know you can just ask the nomination to be relisted, right? I do not appreciate your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith here and on my talk page. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of sources in the article discussing the etymology of the term. No reason to delete. ResonantDis_tortion 00:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources discussing etymology made a term past NOTDICT basically all lemmas could qualify as most have sources discussing their etymology. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 2 December 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 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian hedge funds

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

Fails WP:NLIST. The references merely confirm they are funds. No sources that establish notability of the list as a whole. LibStar (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Lists, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries here are non-notable and since hedge funds are private entities that are often secretive, I expect most of them will have difficulty passing WP:NCORP. We already have List of hedge funds which contains all the expected notable hedge funds. There are no list for hedge funds in other countries so having a list only for Canada give undue weight to it that other countries do not have (not even the US which has most of the notable ones).- Imcdc Contact 10:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly non-notable and we already have List of hedge funds that can comfortably include the small number of notable ones. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrah, California

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

Mass-created article by Carlossuarez46, who created 159 articles on the same day as this one. Fails GEOLAND, no evidence that this was ever a legally-recognised populated place. GNIS is not a reliable source for a place having been populated, per WP:GNIS and the RSN discussion.

This was a declined PROD from last year with the comment "isn't a post office evidenence this was once a populated place?". To answer this, no it isn't, because especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, post-offices could be located anywhere, particularly within stores/mines/railway stations etc. that were located outside populated communities. Opening of a post office anyway does not confer legal recognition as a populated place - for that incorporation as a town or similar is needed. In this case, based on what can be seen there now, it appears to have been a single building located at a cross roads - probably a store or way-station in which the post office was located. Of course all this assumes that the Durham reference actually says what C46 cited it as saying - they repeatedly misquoted/misrepresented it.

Looking at Internet Archive and Newspapers.com for sources about "Darrah, California" returned no relevant results. I did consider redirecting/renaming this to Darrah Park, which is now at this location, but I couldn't find any reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GEOFEAT for Darrah Park - for example here's the internet archive search for Darrah Park and here's a search on Newspapers.com. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: I was the one who PRODed the article last year). I stand by my earlier reasoning. Note that all hits in the Internet Archive for Darrah Park are either for different parks, or for people named Darrah Park (I couldn't access the newspapers.com results). So I don't think a rename/redirect makes much sense. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no "Darrah Park" per se; the county website lists it as a "facility" named "Darrah Schoolhouse". Basically it's a hall you can rent which is indeed the old schoolhouse shown on topos. Everything else, including those maps, says that it was a 4th class post office. One of us (it wasn't me) got a copy of Durham, and yeah, he was frequently misrepresented, but I note that really only the post office info is cited to him anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mangoe - I think WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is pretty clear about schools not being automatically notable, if that's what this location is/was. FOARP (talk) 16:07, 25 November 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. There is consensus that the material used in solid surface countertops is notable. The content issues raised by the nominator are being addressed on the talk page. Discussion about moving this article to a disambiguated title and making "solid surface" a DAB is a primary topic issue and more suited to a move discussion. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid surface

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

Article which is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH combination of several products under a non-existent name. Nothing notable that is not already in the companies products. No coverage of the name since the usage here is completely inappropriate -- there is a standard definition of what a "Solid surface" is. Almost everything is unsourced WP:OR. Since Espresso Addict opposed a PROD arguing that there was useful content, nominated for AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Solid surface" seems to be used for a "synthetic countertop material that contains both minerals and resins" ... "33-percent binding resins and 66-percent minerals. Those minerals are a bauxite derivative, aluminum trihydrate (ATH)".[68] (a selling site). Will try to find some more-respectable sources. The article should state upfront that it applies to the synthetic material and that the physics usage is covered in surface (though actually I see it isn't really). It might be a good idea to move this to a title with a disambiguator and make "solid surface" into a dab. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many hits in Ebsco (3,260 for '"solid surface" countertop'), some of which call the material "solid surface composite" which might be a good article title; a few of the top are: W Kyle Mandler, Chaolong Qi, Yong Qian. Hazardous dusts from the fabrication of countertop: a review. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. Jul2022, p1-9 [69] "Both SSC and ES consist of a mineral substrate bound together in a polymer matrix. For SSC the mineral is about 70% aluminum trihydrate (ATH)"; Counter Points. By: Van Vlear, Victoria, American Farmhouse Style, 26415380, Feb/Mar2024, Vol. 9, Issue 1; Solid Surface International Expo 2005, SolidSurface Magazine. May/Jun2005, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p40-46; Webster, Mark. Seamless Solid Surface Sinks. Surface Fabrication. Mar2008, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p26-29; Dulley, James. Replace your old countertops with solid surface ones. Farm & Dairy. 10/4/2018, Vol. 105 Issue 3, p15; Spaulding, Harry. Counter vision. Residential Design & Build. Feb/Mar2007, Vol. 72 Issue 2, p44-49; Windmeier, Patrick. Understanding The Cause Of Solid Surface Countertop Failure Part I: Front Edge Cracks. Surface Fabrication. Oct2008, Vol. 14 Issue 10, p22-23; The latest in countertop trends. Wood Digest. Mar2006, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p34; and many more. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A solid surface is literally that, the surface of a solid. It is an important topic in surface science, physics, chemistry, materials science, catalysis and a few others. There are millions of academic papers and quite a few Nobel prizes with a history of many centuries. The latest was Ertl in 2007
for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces

If you want to defend it then please do a ~~redirect~~merge to some innocuous name such as Countertop, rather than suggesting that centuries of science should be ignored because someone decided to hack an established name. (Countertop is more comprehensive than this, but also appalling devoid of sources.) Ldm1954 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, lots of words/phrases have more than one meaning, and as I wrote above, I am entirely happy with moving this off the top level to allow a disambiguation page or a primary page on the phys/chem topic (which I don't think currently exists?). Bear in mind that while many of the editors who patrol AfD deletion lists in science/academia topics are actually current or former scientists, I fear the average reader might genuinely be more interested in what material to get their kitchen/bathroom countertops made out of than in the physics/chemistry meaning. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate page exists, surface science. Also, please note that it is science, not just physical sciences or just physics/chemistry. For instance cell adhesion to solid surfaces is an important topic where there has been extensive work. The normal use of the term is everywhere, just for fun try this. Abnormal use is just that, and has no place on WP IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: for an expert view on the term as a synthetic material; perhaps he will be able to suggest a better move/merge target. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to "Solid surface material" or "Solid surface product". I have refrained from editing this article for many years because I have a deep conflict of interest. I have derived a large majority of my income for over 40 years from selling, fabricating, installing, repairing and modifying solid surface countertops and related items such as table tops, desk tops, retail service counters and tub and shower walls. So, I have paid the mortgages on two homes and bought a third for cash, raised two sons from birth to age 40 and age 35, traveled extensively and lived a pretty good middle class life due to this product. I was active in a trade group called the "International Solid Surface Fabricator's Association" for quite a few years. One of my sons is keeping my business going as I transition toward retirement, which is a source of great pride to me. "Solid surface material" or "solid surface product" is the generic term accepted in the construction industry of the English speaking world for a variety of competing commercial products that includes international brands such as DuPont Corian, Avonite, Fountainhead (defunct), HiMacs, Staron, and countless regional brands. The current lead section is largely accurate. The rest of the article is of varying quality ranging from OK to mediocre to terrible. The referencing is really poor. But AfD is not cleanup and I am absolutely certain that this topic is notable and that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As for the idea of merging/redirecting to Countertop, that would be like merging/redirecting German shepherd or Boston terrier or Poodle to Dog. There are many materials used for countertops, and we should have articles about each one of them that is notable. This is a discrete and notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid surface product" is Ok, with "Solid surface" redirected to Surface science. However, I prefer WP:TNT. I just checked some of the sources and they have no bearing on the claims they are trying to justify. I think we are doing a disservice to WP by having articles full of unverified claims and unreliable sources. Without a reasonably sourced article notability is certainly not demonstrated. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific about some of the OR/SYNTH here:
To verify a claim that the same tools as used by wood can be used, a paper on the hardness of surface treated wood is quoted.

To verify a claim that additives such as crushed optical fibers can be used, a paper on a hydration process is quoted.
N.B., Countertop remains a strong merge candidate as it is quoted as the main use multiple times. However that page is equally bad in sourcing. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The topic is notable. That is what matters most. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is no evidence of notability. As you know, your statement as an expert does not make it notable, WP:Burden. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Espresso Addict provided plenty of evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here is a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage to solid surface materials:

This should establish notability and allow any editor without a conflict of interest to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay. WP:BURDEN is policy. If you are voting Keep then I would say the burden is on you (and/or @Espresso Addict). I am somewhat gentle in my approach compared to some editors I know who just delete, delete, delete. Realistically, if all unsourced statements were deleted there would be nothing left beyond the lead (as that does not need sources).

So long as you are WP:NPOV, declare the COI and describe your competitors more than your company I see no reason why you cannot at least add sources. Alternatively or as well you can use WP:Edit requests. I would be happy to add those, and I suspect that @Espresso Addict would also. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ldm1954, for fifteen years, I have been exceedingly careful to avoid violating WP:COI. I have an obvious and massive and glaring financial conflict of interest about this topic. You are asking me to violate the COI policy and I will not do it. I have provided a list of 24 books that provide significant coverage of this notable topic. I think that is enough. In my view, you should withdraw this nomination and improve the article based on some of the sources that I have furnished. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered and will post some proposed content on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC

I have posted some proposed content which I believe is neutrally written and well-referenced at Talk: Solid surface. I encourage Ldm1954 or Espresso Addict to remove the unreferenced and poorly referenced content and replace it with the content I have drafted. I support moving the page to Solid surface material. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft suggestion is a great deal better than the current article. I have left some comments on the talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, our deletion policy is relatively clear on the broader point. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you feel the topic is notable but the current content is unsalvageable, you can for example boldy reduce the article to a stub (after the AFD). I feel that WP:BURDEN is primarily associated with verifiability of content within an article, but the relevant question here is whether the article topic is notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 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 Dildarnagar#Education. Given the context of the target article, I think a Redirect is more suitable than a Merge as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Senior Secondary School

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

This article about Noble Senior Secondary school fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG due to a lack of Significant Coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable school that has stayed too long. It was very chaotic to find sources in my before search because there are tons of similar names and when narrowed to a geo-location it brought nothing. It fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that difficult to do a valid search, then how do you actually know that it fails GNG? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG --Altenmann >talk 14:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dildarnagar#Education, where it is already mentioned. Per the Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia's goal is not to delete objective, factual information. If we can't find enough sources to justify a separate article, we should merge it up instead of deleting it completely. Also, Hindi and Urdu are the usual languages in this area, and it would be good if someone who can read those languages would figure out the local non-English name and search for sources. We are probably missing some. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 1 google news hit and nothing in google books. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 2 December 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!} 07:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Worthy (record producer)

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

Not notable. As pointed out by Rift, the sources appear to be paid coverage, and the article appears to be written by undisclosed paid editors. See Talk:James Worthy (record producer)#Conflicts of interest. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also this edit. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Seems overly broad, but okay. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A familiar pattern: Discogs, Soundcloud, Facebook, no RS. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of "profiles" of Worthy on the web, yet they're all PR-firm-written puff pieces. I don't see any in-depth coverage from independent journalistic sources. Rift (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Sources to social media, no reliable, secondary sources, orphan article, while one of these things does not mean COI, all 3 combined fits the COI bill all too well. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:29, 2 December 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!} 07:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verfluchte Jungfernloch

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

I don't believe this is notable. It is mentioned as existing in folklore, which it does. However, these references don't feel notable to me. IDK, y'all help me out! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my German isn't very good, but there's references to this cave in books on a quick Google search and caves have very low notability thresholds. "These references don't feel notable to me" is a bad deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that. When I did my before search, I could only find sources that resolved to one or two sources. These were fairytales form around 1850-ish. However, there wasn't coverage of the cave. It might be worth having a article on the fairytale, but the current article dosent have adequate sourcing. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're really looking for a pass of WP:GEOLAND here, and there's plenty out there to pass that. I'll note the German page is 'Verfluchtes Jungfernloch' and searching that gets a load more hits. It's a cave, it's in Eisenach. We're home and dry, mateys... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 25 November 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. czar 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khon Kaen Silk Festival

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

Unsourced two sentence orphaned article that's been tagged for improvement for 4 years. I'm struggling to find any sources that show it meets WP:GNG, as everything either seems to be a simple "here is when the festival is" or Wikipedia mirror content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge into the Culture section of Khon Kaen, if I could actually find a suitable reference for it. Since I can't, I might have to lean delete for now. Procyon117 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty years later, I've added a bit more and some sources (I don't use ref tags, but feel free to convert them if you must!). For what it's worth, I think we should keep, because it's a big event and there's certainly more to add when someone with better Thai comes along some time in the next two decades. Sources regarding rural Thailand are a bit more challenging to find, but we're hopefully still trying to reduce our Anglo-Saxon bias. Henry ^Flower 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those sources are independent enough for them to help the article meet GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 19:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search of the festival: [70] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this! Wasn't able to search in Thai and searching in English didn't give me anything I felt made it reach the threshold. CoconutOctopus talk 08:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as very big national or regional festival. Next time, please do research first and then nominate for deletion. Thanks ManoiCMU (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources that help this article meet the notabilitu requirements then that's fantastic, please add them. As I stated, I did search, and didn't find anything (presumably as there's not much in English about it). Please don't assume I 'didn't do research'. CoconutOctopus talk 08:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not a valid argument - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. There is coverage on the festival in Gerson, Ruth (1996). Traditional festivals in Thailand. Oxford University Press. p. 72. In searching for both "Silk and Phuk Siao Festival" and the "Khon Kaen Silk Festival" the festival was covered in pretty much every published travel guide for Thailand for the past few decades. I recommend searching "Khon Kaen" "Silk Festival" because many more sources pop up that way. Thai media also covers the festival by looking in google news in Thai using: "เทศกาลไหมขอนแก่น" and "เทศกาลผ้าไหมและผูกเสี้ยว", and there also is some coverage from Thai media in English. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source eval for the newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A plethora of sources exist, as shown by Lerdsuwa and 4meter. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 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 03:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGary, Indiana

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

Here we have a bit of source over-interpretation, because the cited history does not say that Hugh McGary owned anything there; it merely says "of McGary's Station". And indeed, the topos go way back here, far enough to show, yes, a station with a siding, and no town. Presumably the station was named after him or a relative, but it doesn't say he owned the land that because a town, because no town seems to have happened. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just a non-notable non-populated place that fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of ever having been a legally-recognised populated place (i.e., incorporated town as required by WP:GEOLAND). FOARP (talk) 14:40, 25 November 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 03:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gudgel, Indiana

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

Yet another rail station, made utterly clear by a 1906 topo showing the station building standing in glorious isolation on its siding. I tried other searching but found lots of references in the county history to people named Gudgel, none to a place of that name. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have been a non-notable rail point, not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Baker asserts there was a "village" here, citing the WPA files (presumably the Roosevelt-era Works Progress Administration) but Baker is of dubious reliability, and even if true this would not be legal recognition of the place as a populated community as required by WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 25 November 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 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis Agouris

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

Declined prod, unreferenced article (also Greek version unreferenced). Searched his name in English and Greek in google news and google books and only yielded 1 hit. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Greece. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has lived a charmed and unreferenced life since 2007, creating the usual citogenesis out there. Of notability, however, there is none. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded this article; I believe the subject may be notable if only as the editor of Naftemporiki, which our article confirms is a major Greek newspaper. However I have to admit that my searches are not coming up with anything; it probably needs someone who is knowledgeable about searching Greek periodicals from the pre-internet era. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the last name Αγγούρης should be transliterated as Angouris, not Agouris. Per the Romanization of Greek, the γγ is an 'ng', which might be making English-language results limited. Kazamzam (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hints of notability, being indexed in the VIAF/Greek national library is something, but I don't find sourcing we can use... Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 25 November 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 03:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Bardan Boarding English School

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

The article has never had any independent or reliable sources in its 9 years of existence. Deletion was initially proposed on account of having no sources. Since then, the only source provided has been the school's own Facebook page. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find a clear redirect target (Koshi Province has an education section, but there's no education district to redirect to), the school has no SIGCOV. There does seem to be some confusion as to whether this is Vidhya Bardan Boarding English School or Vidhya Bardan English Boarding School. In either guise, there is no notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb, that province is bigger than half a dozen US states; it is a third the size of the United Arab Emirates. Education districts rarely exist outside of North America. The usual thing to do is to redirect it to the nearest city, rather than such a large area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: dosen't meet sigcov standards for a private school 1keyhole (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Nepal.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that works. That page seems to refer to largely refer to schools with articles. Those with redlinks are tagged as needing cleanup. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging/redirecting is the normal approach to schools that we don't want to have separate articles about. However, it is more usual to merge to the city/location, which would be Phidim Municipality in this case. I think the suggestion to redirect is a good one. Just create a quick ==Education== section with a sentence along the lines of "Vidhya Bardan Boarding English School is a private boarding school in the city". All the schools in every city should be described in the article about the city. When the city is small enough, as in this case, they should be named, but of course for a very large city you'd be more likely to write something like "There are 200 schools serving 60,000 students in the city".

This is another WP:BEFORE difficulty, because the sources that would prove notability were probably written in Limbu or Nepali. I suspect that nobody in this discussion tried to find the name of this school in those scripts, or to directly check news media from the local area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it might be worthwhile to see if there is a corresponding article on those Wikipedias with better sourcing. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no interlanguage links, so I wouldn't know how to find any such articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Can't base an article on a sole Facebook source. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 26 November 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 Land of Oz#Quadling Country. I'm going of the argument of one participant and closing this as a Merge rather than a Redirect as there is only a brief mention of this subject at the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quadling Country

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

This article was brought to my attention after it was brought up in the Wikipedia Discord server, and I did some digging on my own, and this location doesn't seem to be independently notable of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The current article's sources are entirely plot summaries and what appears to be a self-published blog post, and a BEFORE in News, Books, and Scholar turned up nothing except TRIVIALMENTIONS, plot summary, and the text of the original work it was featured in. This article doesn't satisfy GNG given a distinct lack of SIGCOV, and should likely be redirected to Land of Oz, where the subject is mentioned several times and of which Quadling Country is apart of in-universe, as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and plot recaps, without WP:SIGCOV that can provide meaningful reception and analysis. A redirect to Land of Oz could be an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land of Oz. There is detail and there is insane level of detail and this is the latter. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land of Oz - While there are plenty of mentions of it as part of broader discussions of Oz as a whole, I am not really seeing enough significant coverage on Quadling specifically that would really justify having a separate article. As it is discussed throughout the main article on the Land of Oz, redirecting there is a preferable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I went through the sources and added one. For the sake of explanation, I'm going to exclude the primary source since that can't give notability. That leaves us with three sources:

The Dictionary of Imaginary Places: Written by a very notable academic (Alberto Manguel) and put out by a reliable publisher, the source looks great on the surface. The issue with it is that as others have stated, it is just an overview of Oz history with no critical insight into any of it. I'd see this as generally usable for notability-purposes, but it's not the strongest possible source when it comes to establishing how a specific country within Oz is notable.
Fairy Tales Reimagined. This was one I added. It's a McFarland book, so definitely usable as a source without question. The book does give some critical overview into the world from what I can see, although it's somewhat mentioned more in relation to the character of Elphaba in Gregory Maguire's Wicked.
Nathan DeHoff blog: This is a SPS, so the issue here is twofold: is this person someone who would be considered a RS enough to overturn the general consensus that SPS are unusable and if so, does the source help establish notability. To answer the first part, I think that DeHoff could generally be considered a RS on the topic of Oz. He's written a few pieces for The Baum Bugle and he was also used as a resource this McFarland book. He's also been published by a couple of the more major, notable Oz organizations. That last part is a bit murky as far as establishing him as a RS goes, but does point towards him being generally considered an authority since those groups are kind of selective. However even if we were to all agree that DeHoff and his blog is usable, the bigger issue is with the second part of the problem. Coverage of the country is pretty light and when some commentary is given, it's not really about the country itself. At best this would make it a general overview of the history/plot of Oz.

I couldn't find any other sources. This leaves us with two sources that summarize the country in relation to Oz history but no critical commentary that would show why this country is independently notable. The other source has commentary, but not enough to do the heavy lifting to make up for the shortcomings of the other two sources. To add to all of this, the country is already generally well covered in the main parent article, to the point where I don't think we really need a spinoff article. I suppose the McFarland source could be used in the Maguire section of the article, but that would be about it. I think a basic redirect would suffice here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Here is an entry in The Wizard of Oz Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to the Characters, Lands, Politics, and History of Oz; although the book seems more like a classroom resource for school teachers. There is some brief analysis/commentary in [71], [72], [73], and a rather odd thesis on cooking in Oz which discusses food and recipes in Quadling Country. I think there is maybe enough WP:SIGCOV to have an article, but ultimately it might just be better to cover this in Land of Oz.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the sources above probably pass GNG, but this has such a high degree of overlap with the other page, is almost entirely in-universe content, and there isn't such an overwhelming amount of material to make it a clear pass, so per WP:PAGEDECIDE it is better to just cover it there PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found or merge with it's section at Land of Oz in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land of Oz#Quadling Country, seems to be plotcruft of the highest degree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:19, 29 November 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!} 01:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Guglielmelli

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has to be the shortest nomination in an AfD I've seen, but it does the job: the article presents nothing to pass WP:GNG and neither does a search. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Kulish

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

~~Unreferenced BLP article. Cannot find significant coverage in sources from translated pages.~~ Withdrawn. I am mistaken; there are sources I did not realize I could access, so the article is in fact notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Governor of Chernivtsi Oblast is a notable position equivalent to a United States Governor. Much of the subject's coverage is in Ukrainian [74][75] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Subject meets WP:NPOL. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, former governor. Ceriy (talk) 02:25, 25 November 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!} 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Falcone (disambiguation)

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

Only one topic besides the primary topic. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a third topic listed there, under “see also”. Mario Falconi was moved to that section a couple years ago after being disambiguated with the other topics above. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a small spelling variant can be a valid reason to disambiguate and that would make this a three-topic dab page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added an Italian screenwriter to the page. There are now clearly enough targets for a disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 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!} 00:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Piermarini

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

Has been tagged as promotional for a decade. Was created by a single-purpose account. Unclear that notability has been established. -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Massachusetts, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somewhat promotional article; sources appear to all be primary, trivial mentions and/or non-independent, resulting in no GNG or NBIO pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "She designed and implemented marketing and business development strategies for global companies" Wooh. WP:NOTCV - fails WP:GNG, sources are press releases, company announcements, passing mentions. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh, entirely promotional. Wish this had been taken to AfD ten years ago, but no time like the present. Ravenswing 07:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Mekomo (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Board member doing business things, is about the extent of the article, as I read it. Nothing that seems to stand out from any other business executive. Links at the bottom are simply confirmation of employment activities, not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 25 November 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.

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.