Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< December 27 December 29 >

Purge server cache

List of busking locations

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

FYI: This is the first time I've ever submitted an article/list for deletion, so I don't know how everything goes here/ the "correct" way to do things. Sorry in advance.

Busking locations can be almost everywhere, and are in essentially every major city. This is a scope that is impossible to achieve in a list. Furthermore, the nature of busking locations means that almost everything in the article is original research. 3602kiva (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at all of the other nominations, it's evident that almost all posts use this Wikipedia nomenclature that I don't understand, like the WP: hyperlinks. Could someone direct me to a resource where I could learn more about this? I would really appreciate it!
3602kiva (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can start with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (abbreviated WP:NOT for convenience), which is relevant to most deletions. And you are quite correct in nominating this. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- (strong) -- Seconding nominator's primary contention, that this is something is occurs in every major city. This smacks of WP:OR. The sources -- the ones that aren't dead, that is -- don't seem to indicate that 'busking' occurrs commonly at the spots they're referring to, simply that they are busking there, so... Regardless, I would additionally argue WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE.MWFwiki (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Ibn Farooq

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

This is an article about an American Muslim missionary who runs a Masjid in California and also has a YouTube channel. I looked through the article's sourcing, and found it relatively lacking:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
OneMessageFoundation on YouTube No The BLP subject is more or less the person who runs the One Message Foundation ~ WP:ABOUTSELF moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
Canadian Dawah Conference No This is a speaker bio for a conference at which the BLP subject spoke ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
Know Your Sheik No This is the same speaker bio as given for the Canadian Dahwah Conference, almost verbatim. This appears to be merely a host for self-submitted bios of Sheiks ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
Masjid Ribat No The BLP subject serves as the Imam at Masjid Al-Ribat ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

After noticing this, I also tried to look for independent significant coverage of this individual from reliable news sources via an online search. Google news returned zero results for search terms Uthman Ibn Farooq Khan Yusufzai and عثمان بن فاروق خان یوسفزی (his Pashto name). But I was able to find some articles that mention a certain "Uthman Ibn Farooq" that are not presently cited:

But I don't think this is enough to warrant an article. Middle East Forum is deemed unreliable at WP:NPPSG and the Arab News source is an editorial and thus not contributing towards notability, so these obviously don't help meet WP:NBASIC. "Voice of the Cape" is a local religious community radio station, and "Politics Nigeria" frankly looks like an online politics blog; while neither are mentioned in the WP:NPPSG (and have never been discussed at RSN, from what I can tell), I don't think either are reliable enough to contribute towards notability. And that leaves us with a single article in the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, but no single source can satisfy the requirement that multiple qualifying sources cover a subject for them to be presumed notable.

As such, I do not think that this WP:BLP meets the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC. And, in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, I think we should delete this article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you're correct, there is only 4 references, one of which is a link to his YouTube channel and the another is a link to a website of a random mosque where there is inadequate information regarding him, the remaining two don't give any indepth and verifiable information regarding him. Codonified (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Nisar Ahmed

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

All sources are either passing mentions or fail WP:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Basintale

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:NPOL and a cursory search does not help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Pikhovych

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry

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

Matchup has only been played 15 times ever; only twice this millennium pbp 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a concern above, the crux of this article isn't really GNG, it's more UNDUE, and the general idea that "does this topic warrant a stand-alone article?" I think there's a clear consensus that we DON'T need an article about every pair of teams that have played 15 times; even though each of those are likely to pass GNG because every football game played in the past few decades has a few newspaper or online articles written about it. Also relevant is NOTINHERITED; just because the Alabama and Penn State football teams are notable doesn't mean they meeting is too. pbp 20:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources posted in this discussion establish that the rivalry is notable outside of the teams individual notabilities as they discuss the rivalry itself in detail. The wast majority of team matchups in sports are not considered anything special and do not get significant coverage written about them. This one does. Alvaldi (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination does not address any policy rationale as to why this should be deleted, a very similar problem that this article's second AfD had six years ago. That AfD was a unanimous keep, as was the first one, and I'm not sure that anything has changed to overturn the prior overwhelming consensus. The fact that the teams have played "only twice this millennium" is entirely irrelevant to the notability of the article as notability is not temporary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The thing that has changed since the first two AfDs is that we have tightened standards on what constitutes a true rivalry. If we are simply judging whether is a true "rivalry", I think the answer is "no". At the prior AfD, I noted: "Personally, I don't this is a 'rivalry' at all. There's no geographic tie, no regularity of play or scheduling, no fan base hatred, etc." I voted to "keep" because I have long believed that historically significant series can be notable ever where they are not true rivalries. My view on that point has not gained a lot of traction. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the single decade (1981-90) when Alabama and Penn State played regular-season games every year, they have only met five times (1959, 1975, 1979, 2010, and 2011). I think this is really stretching the bounds of what can be considered either a rivalry or a notable series. With the expanded playoffs, it will become increasingly common for major programs like these to meet more frequently. This is probably setting a precedent to include yet more "non-rivalry" rivalries just because there are a couple of pregame articles hyping to the series as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If several independent and reliable sources significantly cover series of matchups between two teams as a rivalry over a significant period of time, as is the case here, then I see no problem having an article on said rivalry. Alvaldi (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though several of the games in the 1980's were big at the time, the series as a whole and its legacy are not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There is also little if any, intensity between the two schools and their fanbases, thus it does not constitute a rivalry in a traditional sense as well. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sourcing in the article suggests that this is a competitive series but not a full blown rivalry. Fails WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NRIVALRY states that Sports rivalries are not presumed notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline. This rivalry passes WP:GNG, and therefore WP:NRIVALRY, with several significant sources from multiple independent publications covering it and specifically calling it a rivalry. (Ironically, one of them states "Kids these days. They just don't have the respect for the Alabama/Penn State rivalry.") It might not be much of a rivalry today, but it was one for about two decades and notability is not temporary. Alvaldi (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt instrument

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands is not a definition, and you would not find anything similar in scope to this article in a dictionary, phrasebook or legal handbook. The literal (rather than figurative) definition at Wiktionary is a single sentence long, for example. A dictionary would not place the term in wider context, contrasting other categories of weapon in the same classification framework, or contrasting the perspectives of different disciplines such as criminology or medicine. The list of commonly improvised blunt instrument weapons is also highly undictionary-like. WP:DICDEF doesnt work, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't work either because information in context is not indiscriminate. Also not data as User:PARAKANYAA mentions, but thats two ways that Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE isn't applicable. 似た牌愛魔 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least not delete. This information should exist somewhere onwiki, though I'm not sure that it is best served as its own page. A merge would be better, but I can't think of a target.
Some sources I found quickly, I can look for more if you want:
Information on the considerations of attacks resulting from this kind of weapon is encyclopedic. No opposition to a merge or appropriate redirect later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to indicate to me a merge to blunt trauma would be best, maybe creating an "in crime" or "inflicted by weapons" section because it extends to other accidents besides criminal acts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be fine by me, though it may fit awkwardly there, unsure. I just feel strongly that information about this concept should go... somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to blunt trauma, because virtually anything hard, from baseball ball to candlestick to 4x4 to riffle butt may serve as a "blunt instrument" of an assault and the term is used almost exclusively as a catch-it-all term in context of traumas when the actual object is not identified. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. The article is more or less about everyday objects that can be used to bash someone. Article has existed for 18 years and notability has yet to be shown. Could redirect to Weapon, as the 2nd paragraph there says "ordinary objects such as sticks, rocks, bottles, chairs, and vehicles can be used as weapons", and blunt instruments are mentioned in the Weapon#Types section. Nurg (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've bulk-added a handful of academic sources, of various degrees of SIGCOV. May need more careful pruning. Not to WP:WHATABOUT this, but we have an article for each of the other 18 weapon types listed in Weapon#By_function. I have no doubt there are sources beyond the ones I've just added. This needs work, not BLAR. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I just noticed most of the sources I added were already found by PARAKANYAA... Owen× ☎ 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping one more week will draw new comments....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Davydenko

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

I’ve done several searches, and nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV comes up, including in Ukrainian. I might be missing something, but I haven’t found anything and none of the sources cited in the article come close to satisfying this standard. Anwegmann (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westballz

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

Top esports player who lacks significant coverage to prove notability. The profiles from Red Bull and ESPN are a good start, but the rest are either web articles of questionable reliability or independence (theScore eSports, EventHubs, G2 Esports) or routine coverage of changes in teams / sponsorships. Bridget (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5. Violation of WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

[edit]
International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NB. this is a contested BLAR and PROD.
The article is mostly routine social media posts - i.e. WP:NOTNEWS. Taking a look at WP:REACTIONS, such articles may be appropriate when the section of the main article covering responses and reactions reaches a size that means the content can no longer all fit into the main article, which simply isn't the case here. This can be easily redirected to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#Reactions -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there could possibly be a chance of the article being moved to the Reactions section of Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. TG-article (talk to me) (contributions) 21:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's all unnecessary clutter, sorry. Only a handful of reactions, and their timing, really matter here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. TG-article (talk to me) (contributions) 21:10, 28 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.

Battle of Wan (1726)

[edit]
Battle of Wan (1726) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks reliable sources to verify the information presented. With no citations or references to reputable historical sources, the content cannot be verified for accuracy. Additionally, the battle appears to have limited historical significance and is not widely covered in notable sources, making the article's notability questionable. Article clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:V . Mr.Hanes Talk 18:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not sure if the battle ever occurred. In a past version of the article, there were six references, the first two seem unreliable (one mentions the battle was 22 Sikh versus 2,200 Mughals, hardly a major battle) and searching within the Google Books of the last four finds zero mentions of "Wan" as a location (only one total mention of "Wan" in a person's name). Searching Google Scholar and Google News for "battle of Wan" "1726" turns up nothing. Google Books produces false positives or offline books. I will note that Wan, Pakistan is similarly unsourced and only claims to be a village. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I am ignoring the rules here and closing this. This is a waste of editor’s time. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olusunbo Olugbemi

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

A non-notable article that fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability.

Furthermore:

  1. The content is poorly referenced, with minimal or no citations from credible sources.
  2. The subject appears to have limited verifiable achievements or recognition to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.
  3. The article may have been created as promotional material rather than for encyclopedic purposes.

Based on these issues, I believe the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion and should be deleted. I welcome feedback and input from other editors. Cameremote (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Wong Weng Hei

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

There doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV for WP:NSPORT. CNC (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Shahzad

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [5] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary School

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Seems like a totally unremarkable primary school, and schools are not inherently notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
https://www.examiner.org.hk/2020/02/21/the-last-chinese-style-architecture-st-francis-of-assisi-church-and-school-in-shek-kip-mei/news/hongkong/ This article talks about how the school is one of the last remaining built in the architectural style of Chinese renaissance in the 1950s, I think this deserves recognition and I apologise for not including this in the article Ilovefood123123 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only non primary source in the article, so even were we to accept it, we are not at a keep yet. But it is interesting because it does cover the school but it spends more time on the church, and it treats the church and school as a complex. Although I am not seeing notability for the school as a school, that would be an excellent source under NGEO for the complex of church plus school, and an article that focuses on the architecture. Similarly it is also treated in Building Catholic Churches in Hong Kong. I cannot find an article on the church and school, but that would appear to be the encyclopaedic subject here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Sundari

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

WP:ALS, no evidence of notability. The beauty pageant organization existed from 1968 to 1975 (lacks factual evidence), with 5 representatives sent to Miss World, two of whom were semi-finalists and one placed as 4th runner-up. While this might be covered in offline sources, given India's success in Miss World, the coverage to support the organization's credibility for Wikipedia is questionable. I reviewed few sources, but they are all unreliable and lacks SigCov. Fails WP:GNG. — MimsMENTOR talk 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Riordan

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utkal Ranjan Sahoo

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO, no significant coverage about him in sources. Being a DGP does not make one inherently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivratan Agarwal

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

This article fails WP:NBIO, there is no significant coverage about him in reliable secondary and independent sources, most indian sources covering him fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA as not being independent of the subject because they suffer from same issues that are documented there. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Mishra (IPS)

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no significant coverage about him in sources. Being a former DGP does not make one inherently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerzner International

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

An article on a hospitality firm, recently edited to become an article in its own right after previously being a redirect to the article on the founder (no longer a suitable redirect target). Searches find routine listings, a recent item announcing user-submitted awards, and a corporate restructuring announcement, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kozel

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

Lack of significant coverage. Article relies mainly or fully on primary sources, plus what appears to be original reseach. I found https://prazsky.denik.cz/fotbal_region/kozel-nasel-sve-stesti-v-anglii.html but little else. A semi-pro footballer who has coached at youth level. C679 12:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentioned IS significant coverage if you try to translate it, but the whole WP:GNG requires many of them instead of one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walls

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

Non-notable sportscaster. Deletion suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Spain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Cannarozzo

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Ievleva

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1874 Waitemata by-elections

[edit]
1874 Waitemata by-elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original BLAR was contested. All the sources in the article are primary and I cannot find any secondary sources.

I am also nominating 1886 Waitemata by-election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Brosnan

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

I believe Graeme Brosnan fails the WP:GNG criteria as there is almost no coverage of him that I can find. The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion; the sources and links that are listed are either dead, do not mention him, or are citations of his own books.

Additionally, there is WP:COI from (I assume) Brosnan himself, editing under User:Brosnan.g.

This is my first nomination of an article for deletion - if I've done something wrong, procedurally or otherwise, please let me know. Iiii I I I (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of G11 reads:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

As the text currently stands it is indeed exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. I mean, this sample in the lead paragraph speaks for itself (and has not a single reference, naturally):

Commissioned by law firms and major insurance companies to prepare and write reports on forensic investigations Graeme started his own company, Brosnans Investigation Services which was tremendously successful and he continues his involvement with the company to this day.

Of course, the text could plausibly be replaced with a more neutral-sounding article, given that this version from 2012 wasn't nearly as bad. However, the G11 description says that this is preferred if the subject is notable, which he is obviously not. I can hardly find any mention of his name in any secondary source, let alone a source in-depth and reliable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It's equally impossible to justify WP:AUTHOR by any of the four criteria listed there.
It's really unfortunate that this stuff has been live for anyone on the Internet to read for more than a decade. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 FK Mladá Boleslav season

[edit]
2024–25 FK Mladá Boleslav season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to Wikipedia's policies and consensus, abandoned pages are subject to deletion either upon request or automatically. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. I tried PROD, but Bilby keeps removing the tag, adding what they claim to be citations but they provide no URLs; either way even with those refs, the article still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Gillespie

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Al-Hammadi

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article fails to demonstrate any proof of notability and relies heavily on sources from social media platforms such as X, Instagram, and LinkedIn, which are generally not considered reliable. The few non-social media sources included are either trivial mentions or lack the depth and significance required to establish notability.

Based on my research, and after conducting a WP:BEFORE, I could not find independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. While the individual is a social media influencer with a large following, this alone does not suffice to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Pizza

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

Completely unsourced article. Though the band appears to be somewhat notable, according to a quick online search. CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development Agency (Turkey)

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

I found the source in the Turkish article at https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Kalkinma-Ajanslarinin-Turk-Hukuk-Sistemindeki-Yeri-Ahmet-Tamer.pdf but I think it needs someone more familiar with the subject to figure out whether this is notable. At least one agency still exists https://ankaraka.org.tr/en But are they just window-dressing for development policies which are now top-down? As the Ministry of Development (Turkey) no longer exists how do they work and who controls them? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian VTuber Awards

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

Similar to the related page Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024, this event does not seem to meet the eligibility criteria of WP:GNG WP:EVENT. It also does not have a reliable source to verify the source of the news. Also, the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: w:id:WP:KONTENKREATOR). Ariandi Lie Let's talk 06:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of today this page notability might be contained within the limits os Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia. Although said page seems to have already been deleted Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024

[edit]
Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm also nominated this article because This event does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nor does it have a reliable sources to verify. Also the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: WP:PEMBUATKONTEN). Ariandi Lie Let's talk 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Professional League 1

[edit]
Istanbul Professional League 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged almost a decade ago as unsourced and article does not exist in Turkish so probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaccan-Siamese war

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

Unverifiable AI-generated piece full of dubious statements and fake references. Will need WP:TNT to be of any appropriateness for Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orduspor (women's basketball)

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

Although the source on the Turkish article is good https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/sporarena/orduspor-oyunculari-sehri-terk-etti-40624285 there is only one so it is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Nazilli Regional

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

Tagged over a decade ago as unsourced. Cites on Turkish article are all primary sources and don’t show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolâhenk Nuri Bey

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

Tagged over a decade ago as uncited and possibly not notable. Article does not exist in Turkish Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ML Lather

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO, no significant coverage about him in sources. Being a former DGP does not make one inherently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fener Ada

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

Hard to search as there is at least one other island with the same name. Tagged many years ago as uncited. The cite on the Turkish article is poor https://www.getamap.net/maps/turkey/izmir/_fener_adasi/ Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diyarbakır Atatürk Stadium

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

Tagged as uncited in 2009 and no longer exists. Is this a notable part of local history? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnotable subject on it's own, WP:MERGE to the main article on the Ribble Link or delete. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Araba 2004

[edit]
Araba 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSINGLE. Unreferenced. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temmie Chang

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

This biography of a living person was published with no sources, and is promotional and unencyclopedic in tone. A ProQuest search yields 11 hits, all of which are brief mentions of her as a collaborator with Toby Fox and contributor of artwork to his video game, Undertale. A Google search yields more, but these do not meet Wikipedia standards for reliability (see WP:RELIABLESOURCES) and do not contribute to notability in the Wikipedia sense. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Escaped Chasm. I've done source searching for her in the past out of curiosity regarding if she could have an article or not. She's not notable, and I don't think an argument could be made for her to pass WP:NARTIST either. So, with that being said, redirect this article to Escaped Chasm, which is a game that she created and actually has an article. λ NegativeMP1 04:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced WP:BLP. Sadly the page history shows this was never close to being adequately sourced. A redirect or merge to Escaped Chasm is not ideal as it doesn't contain biographical information and isn't the thing Chang is most known for, but is better than nothing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NCREATIVE #3 as she played a major role in co-creating Undertale as its lead artist and concept artist, which some might call one of the best known indie games ever made without hyperbole, as well as Deltarune with a similar role. If Escaped Chasm is actually notable, it would give further credence to her being a notable creative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately most of the coverage on Undertale focuses on Toby and mentions Temmie's role only very briefly (plus the fact that there is a creature named after her). Cielquiparle (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is completely wrong. Temmie is not regarded as a co-creator of Undertale, and she is only discussed as the artist for that game on the Undertale article (where she is covered in one sentence of the articles body). I also don't think NCREATIVE is valid here because of WP:INHERITED, due to the aforementioned lack of commentary about Temmie Chang's role in the game. There are practically zero reliable sources that discuss her as a person. λ NegativeMP1 02:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Westchester County tornado

[edit]
2006 Westchester County tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wow, I've never AfD'd an FA before. Anyways, this tornado is not notable as there was no coverage past a few days after the event, with one mention three months after the event, too low for a tornado in my opinion. Fails my criteria as well. If this article were to be made today, I'm 100% sure it would no longer exist. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT and there is no WP:LASTING coverage. It's rarity, much like its rating, means absolutely nothing if no sources consistently talk about. Notability concerns were also brought up during the FAC, so I'm not sure how it passed. EF5 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It got a lot of coverage at the time of the event and still gets mentioned as a notable NY State/Northeast tornado after many years (for example, here, here, here, here, and here). Plus, this isn't a crappily written stub, it's an FA, so there's some readable text there (though it looks like it needs some updatilng), and if it's even a close call, I'd rather preserve the content. Plus, all the reviewers at FAC (and GA and any peer review) must have thought that it was notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider any of those sources WP:INDEPTH. An article's class has little to do with it's notability in this case; the article was FACed in 2008 and standards... weren't as high back then. Was going to take it to FAR but realized it likely isn't even notable. This isn't the first time a tornado GA/FA has been at a delete/merge venue, see this discussion which almost ended with a GA being merged. EF5 13:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Although some news coverage still exists, it is mostly in the form of "tornadoes in New York are rare" or something along that line, and not much about the actual tornado.
the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Schreiber

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe she does satisfy notability. Actually not sure what the issue is about the article. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

[edit]
Sex, Love, Misery: New New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
  • Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.
    I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).
    I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Health Dynamics Inventory

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

Non-notable medical tool. The inventors of this procedure appear to have copy-pasted promotional material onto Wikipedia, and even left their contact information at the bottom. It remains without secondary sourcing 14 years later. All the sigcov listed is self-published by the authors. Jdcooper (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of music and dance anime

[edit]
List of music and dance anime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not an expert with the Anime WP, but the term "music and dance anime" seems not to satisfy WP:NLIST: it's not a specific category on the wiki, the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain anime that use idol setting or themes as part of a bigger plot would seem to be so vague and indefinite as to make the list difficult to populate or understand what makes an entry eligible. There is also no sourcing to support list entries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of musical anime I'll try to fix and redefine it. WP:TNT is also an option . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the two options you've presented are polar opposites. Just clarifying - do you think the list as currently drafted can satisfy WP:NLIST? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain...", the autor of the article here, is because there already is a list of idol anime and manga so there is no need to duplicate things. Also majority of people are not into both, they are either into idol things or are not. You could divide music anime/manga genres into two broad subgenres: idol subgenre and non-idol subgenre. There are examples for "not strictly idol, but uses idol setting as part of a bigger plot": Heroines Run the Show: The Unpopular Girl and the Secret Task. A girl works for an idol and in idol setting but the story is not about being an idol or becoming an idol. The other is Key the Metal Idol. Also in idol setting but there is a conspiracy behind the curtain and existential crisis of a robot - now compare it to run of the mill idol stories like Pretty Rhythm or D4DJ. There is also anime like Samurai Jam -Bakumatsu Rock-, Hypnosis Mic: Division Rap Battle Rhyme Anima and Paradox Live the Animation for which you could say are idol stories because of the characters but the story is not about being an idol. I don't think it's vague. It's just a question of is there a story about sth other than being (becoming) an idol in the story.
    You stated "Inexplicably it also looks like the list contains manga as well." It does NOT. You should't misguide people and not provide examples. Everything on the list is/has an anime/OVA/ONA, but the "problem" is that not many anime have their own articles or (anime-)links redirect to a manga page. It would be ridiculous to expect than a 1 ep OVA has an article. I tried to have as many blue links as posssible so it's possible there are links to a manga but it DOES have anime/OVA/ONA.
    There is "dance" in the name of the article because there are anime that revolve around dance, rather than just singing and playing instruments, namely Hula Fulla Dance, Brave Beats and Tribe Cool Crew.
    "no sourcing" - not sth that cannot be done after the fact and there is a reason for that. not justification, but for majority of entries there is a blue link to the main article that has all the sourcing you can get so it's not sth I pulled out of my ass. I choose not to source, primarily, because I knew there were bound to be dense people, I was right, and there is likelihood for the article to be deleted, so potentially not to lose extra time I made that decision. A list like this, and this is quite a comprehensive list, takes quite a bit of time to make, more than you could guess. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have omitted the misleading statement in the nomination. I appreciate the time it's taken to create this. WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT is a concern because the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope. When looking at pages like List of idol anime and manga you can see there's a sourced background and exploration of its scope. Without that here, it's hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus. The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based on an editor's subjective assessment of how much the anime involves an idol plot. That's why external sourcing about this as a clear genre or category is important. Others may consider that this is a very clear and established genre category and if so that's ok and all that needs to be done is better support this in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jebamani Janata Party

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

Non notable political party. The leader of this party gained some notoriety for filing a false affidavit. Has never won an election (never even come close), is not a recognised party with a permanent symbol and therefore should not remain. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Yeah, I guess you might be right... I'm not from India, so I'm not really familiar with India's political system, but I'm trying to do my best to figure things out. (e.g. I have now realized that I should probably link "unrecognized" to Politics of India § Registered Unrecognized Political Party (RUPP)) I have now done some mostly-thorough searching through various public and licensed resources that I have access to, and here are the statistics of what I found (though keep in mind that my criteria for what to list and what to merge vs keep separate have been a bit inconsistent):
  • 83 articles/books/documents total
    • 12 were about Nellai R. Jebamani in the Janata Party
    • 25 were just lists of election candidates or results or similar
    • 37 were just about Mohanraj, the party leader
    • 9 actually have information about the party beyond Mohanraj and election participation and performance:
      1. A Hindi?-English bilingual government document: मजूमदार, ए. के. (July 12, 2002). "भारत निर्वाचन आयो, अधिसूचना, आ.अ. 82( अ )". भारत को राजपत्र. असाधारण : भाग II—खण्ड ३—उप-खण्ड (iii) (in Hindi). No. 61. नई दिल्ली. रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल०-33004/99 : सं. 56/2002( iv )/न्यायिक-III. निर्वाचन प्रतीक ( आरक्षण और आबंटन ) आदेश, 1968 के पैरा 17 के उप पैरा ( 2 ) के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग समय-समय पर यथा संशोधित तारीख 10 जनवरी, 2002 की अपनी अधिसूचना संख्या 56/2002/न्यायिक-III, में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन और करता है अर्थात् :— [...] II. उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न सारणी III ( रजिस्ट्रीकृत अमान्यता प्राप्त दलों ) में— (1) क्रम सं. 584 पर विधमान प्रविष्टियों के पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों स्तम्भ 1, 2 और 3 के नीचे क्रमश: रखी जाएं :— [...] 592.; जेबामणि जनता; नं. 33, सैंकड़ स्ट्रीट, पूर्व अबिरामपुरम, माइलापोर, चेन्नई-600004 तमिलनाडु । = MAJUMDAR, A. K (July 12, 2002). "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NOTIFICATION, O.N. 82(E)". The Gazette of India. EXTRAORDINARY : PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii). No. 61. New Delhi. REGD. NO. D. L -33004/99 : No. 56/2002(iv)/Jud. III. In pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 17 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Election Commission ot India hereby makes the following further amendments to its Notification No. 56/2002/Jud-III, dated 10th January, 2002, as amended from time to time, namely :— [...] II. In Table III (Registered unrecognised parties), appended to the said Notification— (i) After the existing entries at serial number 584, the following entries shall be inserted under columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively column . [...] 592.; Jebamani Janata; No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004. (Tamil Nadu). @ Internet Archive in.gazette.central.e.2002-07-12.114616, in.gazette.e.2002.241.
      2. That announcement is repeated in the following English-language document: MAJUMDAR, A. K. (1 August 2002). Pal, R. P. (ed.). "GOVERNMENT OF GOA, Department of Elections, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; from ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA: Notification, No. 56/2002/Jud.III". OFFICIAL GAZETTE, GOVERNMENT OF GOA. SERIES I. No. 18. pp. 375–376. Internet Archive in.goa.egaz.0203-18.SI.
        • These indicate that the party's name in Devanagari script is "जेबामणि जनता". I didn't find anything obviously useful from a quick Google search, but I don't speak/read Hindi (I've been relying on Google Translate, OCR, and visual clues), and I'm not sure what search engines might work best for Indian webpages in Hindi.
        • Internet Archive has 107 results for "Jebamani Janata"; I haven't bothered to go through all of them yet, just the couple of oldest ones, and then skimmed through and saw that they all looked kinda similar.
      3. Political Parties and Election Symbols. New Delhi: Publication Division, Election Commission of India. 2004. p. 47. HathiTrust mdp.39015061276674. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ.
        • I don't seem to have access to this, but I did find another version online, and on p. 24, 47 it says: "TABLE — III: REGISTERED UNRECOGNISED PARTIES [...] S.No.: 323.; Name of the Registered Unrecognised Political Party: Jebamani Janata; Headquarters Address: No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, (Tamil Nadu)"
      4. Ahuja, M. L. (2005). "Appendices". General Elections in India: Electoral Politics, Electoral Reforms, and Political Parties. p. 429. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ. HathiTrust inu.30000101132953. Abbreviation: JJ; Party: Jebamani Janata
      5. "'Richest' in fray faked it". New Indian Express. 11 May 2009. Factiva NIEXPR0020090512e55b00053. Mohanraj is the son of late freedom fighter and a close associate of late leader K Kamaraj, R Jebamani. Mohanraj is heading the Jebamani Janata, a registered, but non-recognised political party.
      6. Mohan, Gopu (6 October 2011). "'Spare 3 on death row': officer who probed Rajiv case is no longer angry". national. Indian Express. Factiva AIWINE0020111006e7a60000z. Gale A268839491. NewsBank 8C87EBB2DB104CEAB04405DA52DA75FE / 2F14960F1FB68CD030. Nexis Uni 53YK-7GF1-JB35-147X-00000-00. PressReader 281805690679459. ProQuest 896368566. He floated the Jebamani Janata Party, named after his father, and has contested 15 elections to Parliament, the Assembly and the local body.
      7. "Health plagues Gandhian fasting against booze". New Indian Express. Express News Servcie. 25–26 February 2013. Factiva NIEXPR0020130228e92p0008k. Gale A320322825. Nexis Uni 57V4-SJT1-F12F-F3FK-00000-00. ProQuest 1312350565. The health condition of the 57-year-old Gandhian from Salem, Sasi Perumal, who had been on fast for the past 27 days demanding total prohibition in the State, began deteriorating on Monday. [...] Social service organisations working towards prohibition in the State — [...] and Jebamani Janata Party — expressed their solidarity with the Gandhian.
      8. "TN candidate declares Rs 1.76 lakh cr cash, Rs 4 lakh cr loan". India. Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) English. 4 April 2019. Factiva HNIANS0020190404ef44003ju. Gale A581195420. The Tribune (India) 753246. ProQuest 2202720901. Candidate for the by-election to the Perambur assembly seat in Tamil Nadu, J. Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata party, has declared loan dues to the World Bank of Rs 4 lakh crore and cash in hand of Rs 1. 76 lakh crore. Interestingly, the Election Commission has accepted Mohanraj's affidavit and has allotted him the 'Green Chilli' symbol. [...] Sixty seven-year old, Mohanraj is the son of late Nellai R. Jebamani who was elected to the Tamil Nadu assembly from the Sattankulam constituency in 1977 as a Janata Party candidate. Mohanraj also said the upcoming one will be his 13th election contest, and that he has unsuccessfully contested the Lok Sabha and Tamil Nadu assembly elections earlier.
      9. Subramanian, Lakshmi (April 4, 2019). "Tamil Nadu's "richest" candidate dares EC to prove him wrong". The Week. Meet Mohanraj Jebamani, a retired police inspector and son of former MLA and freedom fighter Jebamani. [...] Mohanraj's father Jebamani was an MLA from the Sathankulam constituency in 1976, the election held immediately after the emergency was lifted. His father Jebamani was one of the detainees under the MISA during the emergency and was part of Morarji Desai's Janata party then. "I got voluntary retirement from the police service, because of corruption." He has named his party as Jebamani Janata Party after his father.
The sources about Nellai R. Jebamani are not directly relevant. The lists and election results are routine coverage, if that doctrine applies to this kind of article. The sources about Mohanraj clearly do not have significant coverage of the party if their only mention is something like '[...] Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata Party [...]'. These last nine sources have some coverage of the party, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of being Significant Coverage... #1-4 are still routine coverage, and #5-9 have only very small amounts of information about the party. However, there are still some unexplored avenues for finding sources: in particular, I have not exhausted the Google Search or Internet Archive results, and I have not really tried searching in Devanagari script, just Latin script...
However, given how much I found about Mohanraj / Mohan Raj, do you think would might be notable enough? If so, I might try to pivot this article into an article about him? The sources I've found are mostly about various litigation he's filed, the false affidavits you mentioned, and a little bit of biographical information. The article I cited from The Week gives the impression of being a short biography of him.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood fort

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

Not notable. Half the article is a list of individual forts with no lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consensus, and also, if necessary, a merger target as two are currently proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"