Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

if page isn't updating.

Guide to deletion

W3G Marine

W3G Marine (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)

Out of the sources supplied, 1st 2 are primary, 3rd is dead. the 4th one seems ok. But a search for sources yielded little in terms of sigcov. Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this 2010 in Scotland. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Though the sources referenced in the article are not reliable there seem to be some sources out there that could pass notability. Mekomo (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Antony King

Antony King (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 looked at the sources, and they seem to be mostly a mixture of press releases, interviews, or insignificant mentions, with only a few sources that aren't. A before search turned up similar. At the very least, the article needs to be stubbified; at most, it needs to be deleted/redirected/etc. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Engineering, and Canada. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTCV of the 27 sources presented here, only three directly reference the subject. One is a broken link, one a YouTube video and one an award nomination. That's yer lot. There's nothing else out there to add to this. A perfectly sound chap doing a perfectly sound job, but doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Social radicalism

Social radicalism (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)

Unless I see sources distinguishing the two—the article presently cites none (!) whatsoever—this seems to overlap entirely with Radical politics. Remsense ‥ 论 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".

While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):

• https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/citizens-and-saints/social-radicalism-the-state-and-revolution/F7229146FD6F0AD0BF22C15905929703
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Limits_of_Community/-svYAAAAIAAJ?hl=en
• https://archive.org/details/socialradicalism0000egbe

See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak restore redirect (or perhaps disambiguate?)-- I'm seeing use in sources, in addition to the ones noted above, but the context and meaning is not consistent across the sources, and does not quite line up with the currently-totally-unreferenced page content. There seem to be the following uses:

  To describe the popular movements aligned with "unpolitical socialism" (i.e. social restructuring without recourse to formal government) in the 19th century, as in Claeys 2009.

  To describe broad populist radical movements, as in Plessner 1999 (the de.wiki article is helpful for getting an idea of the source's perspective)

  To describe the broad layer of radical social movements, from the French Revolution to Marx to 1968, as in Egbert 1970

  To describe groupings with revolutionary ideologies in 21st century Islamic social movements in Indonesia, as in Hendri et al [1], Azisi et al [2], Ali et al [3] , and a number of other Indonesian publications

  In an attributed quote that is difficult to parse (but nonetheless made it into the title) of Pike-Rowney 2023, [4]. Here it seems like an allusion to the broad layer of social movements, perhaps?

  In the title of a dataset "Political and Social Radicalism", where it seems to just be describing radicalism expressed socially. [5]

  To describe socialdemocratic ideals espoused by Eugene Forsey, in Canadian Conservative Political Thought [6]

In sum, I'm not seeing a consistent definition conducive to an article, it seems to encompass a wide range of loosely radical liberal, populist or social-democratic movements, sometimes identifying only a subset thereof and sometimes expanding out to even include other anti-establishment movements. All of these usages are describing a radicalism that is in some way social, but they don't begin to provide a theory or description of a singular concept. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Social radicalism as defined here indicates that it was a form of radicalism that developed among the working class in the early 20th century that was focused more on social equality (ie class issues) rather than the economic equality focus that was typical among radicals of the middle class. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nosral Recordings

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nosral Recordings
• Articles for deletion/Nosral Recordings (2nd nomination)

Nosral Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Haruki Umemura

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Haruki Umemura
• Articles for deletion/Haruki Umemura (2nd nomination)

Haruki Umemura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deleted before. No trace of notability, played 1 cup game and not in any of the J Leagues, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Umemura was deemed non-notable back in the first AfD ten years ago. He must meet GNG only in order for this article to be kept, as NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Even while searching for his name in Japanese, I didn't find any significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - So, Umemura didn’t play a lot of soccer due to some serious injuries, but there is an absolute ton of extensive independent coverage both of the injuries cutting his career short, but also of his after football career as the assistant abbot of a Buddhist temple belonging to his wife’s family. I’ve gone ahead and edited the article with all the extra information, sources and line citations. It’s all in Japanese (naturally), but you should be able to use google translate to check it if you are so inclined. I only ended up using like 6-7 of the articles, but there are at least another dozen or so readily apparent via a basic google search of his name (in kanji), and I can only guess many more if I used more precise search terms. With all these in-depth and independent sources, there is no way that this article does not meet general notability, and since, as @Clariniie points out, there is no seperate NFOOTBALL, this is as clear a keep as I’ve come across in a while. Ping to @GiantSnowman as requested. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment To add, I can’t find evidence of a prior AfD (I’m guessing just because I don’t know where to look, having only been here 3 months still), but if it was 10 years ago that would have been just after that first injury, so it makes sense it failed because at that stage he’d still played no professional games yet, and had not transformed himself into a monk, so coverage would have been minimum simple due to “too soon”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haruki Umemura, it's literally linked in the top corner. Please summarise the sources for us. GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nice, can’t believe I didn’t look there.

They’re all in the article now, I added them all as sources / line citations… just click and translate via google translate. Some shorter articles, but some long articles too, a couple in the 3-5 page range. Here’s the kanji for his name though 梅村 晴貴 - cut and past that into google and you’ll get the full basic search for his name.

It’s late here and I need to sleep, but if you still really need me to go through them for you rather than looking, I’ll have time later tomorrow.

Have a great day over there. Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so just the basics since I’m a bit busy this afternoon, but here’s that summary. Source order is as listed on the article.

Sources 2 and 4 - different pages from a 3 page article in a sports magazine on Umemura’s youth career, move to the professionals, and the injury that derailed his career.

Source 3 - single page article in the Shizuoka Shinbun Newspaper talking about Umemura’s participation in the SBS Cup International Youth Soccer tournament during his youth career.

Source 5 - short announcement, in an online soccer site, published by Kodansha, Japan’s largest publisher, announcing his professional signing.

Source 6 - short announcement, in same online site as source 5, announcing his injury and upcoming surgery.

Source 8 - 4 page article in a sports magazine talking about Umemura’s move from professional player, to team staff, to priest, due to the request from his wife’s family to take over their temple, and about his new role in that temple.

Source 9 - 1 page article in same online site as 5 and 6, talking about transition from player, to team staff, and then his two and a half years of training to gain his priest’s license. Also an announcement that he will be involved in a 15th anniversary match for the Toyama team, that I haven’t tracked down yet, as this article talks about it in the future tense.

Hope that helps. Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Artcile has been updated with more sources, giving this another week so it can be re-evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://thevillagesun.com/what-a-trip-union-square-travel-agency-cannabis-store-blends-quality-variety-and-education	The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject.
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/02/37131528/just-one-weed-dispensary-in-new-york-generated-5m-in-tax-revenue-in-its-first-year-and-created-1			Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV.
https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/cannabis-store		Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-downtown-brooklyn-union-square-cannabis-store-rebrand/	Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/new-york/news/15687880/union-square-travel-agency-a-cannabis-store-opens-as-new-yorks-third-manhattan-based-adult-use-dispensary-the-starting-line	Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2023/02/14/city-s-third-legal-cannabis-dispensary-opens-near-union-square			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.greenmarketreport.com/new-yorks-travel-agency-to-open-brooklyn-cannabis-store-under-licensing-deal/	Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication.		Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://design-milk.com/union-square-travel-agency-flies-high-evoking-eero-saarinens-twa-flight-center/
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/24/05/38656031/new-yorks-the-travel-agency-opens-third-cannabis-shop-this-time-near-rockefeller-central-grand-c			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://www.brooklynpaper.com/the-travel-agency-dispensary-downtown-bk/			Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-fifth-avenue-opening/			Dead link, not archived.
https://honeysucklemag.com/the-travel-agency-union-square-first-anniversary-consumer-insights-amy-sedaris/	Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject	Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team."
https://web.archive.org/web/20241109054547/https://musebyclios.com/cannabis/travel-agency-becomes-new-york-film-festivals-first-cannabis-sponsor			Dead link	A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/you-can-now-buy-cannabis-at-nycs-weed-museumyou-just-cant-use-it-there-102523			WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
  I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
  The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
  If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Without giving an opinion on anything else, I think the source assessment table is wrong on the first source. The Village Sun is a daily newspaper in NYC and the article has a by-lined author by a on-staff independent journalist. That source is both clearly reliable, and independent, even if the journalist interviewed some of the people working at The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store. Journalists do fact checking and the paper has an editorial staff. That should clearly be in the WP:SIGCOV column as an accepted source under WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Created by acknowledged paid user Stephvrona. As noted at the top, this article is very WP:PROMO. The article lead is promotional, and the "Locations and operations" section is blatant advertisement. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability is lacking per the chart, but I would argue that this article could also be deleted under WP:TNT as it is clearly written as an advertisement. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Robbie King (darts player)

Robbie King (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Only a primary source provided. First 2 google news hits are about him but look rather routine. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm finding some good coverage across Australian media - I'm presuming the two you're referring to as the Google News hits are these from the Gold Coast Bulletin and Courier Mail? In addition to this though I found a heap of other coverage - Robbie aims for a King-sized impact in darts (Gold Coast Bulletin, 2019), King focused on Wizardry (same, 2011), Young but on target (same, 2009), Heta win spurs King (Herald Sun, 2019), King of Coast keen at shot for Power (again Gold Coast Bulletin, 2018), King aiming to rule in Masters (The Chronicle, 2019). A great many of these are coverage of King himself and his career (across over a decade no less) rather than just the repetition of results, so I'm seeing a decent case for keeping the article here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:12, 25 November 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.

Helene Pellicano

Helene Pellicano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Malta. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Marius Curteanu

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Marius Curteanu
• Articles for deletion/Marius Curteanu (2nd nomination)

Marius Curteanu (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 did my very best but I cannot find substantive coverage in independent sources. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Horse racing and Romania. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I looked too. The article's claims do not seem backed up by reliable sources, and without sources it's unclear whether some of these are things done by him, or his students. Also the few references there are don't exactly back up the claims, like the Wikipedia article says he won the 1989 Baltic Games, but the reference says he placed sixth. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Emily Prentiss

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss
• Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss (2nd nomination)

Emily Prentiss (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)

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN

The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.

----

A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources

The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:

1. Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
2. ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
3. E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
4. CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.

These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.

----

B) Prominence as a Lead Character

• Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
• Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.

----

C) Reception and Real-World Discussion

• Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
• Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.

This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.

----

D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS

Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”

This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:

• Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
• Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
• Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.

These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.

----

Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”

Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.

----

Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”

Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.

----

Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”

Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.

----

• The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
• It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
• The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
• The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.

Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.

----

DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The policy you are citing explicitly states:

"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."

The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 UNAF U-20 Tournament squads

2024 UNAF U-20 Tournament squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is a general consensus that minor regional football tournaments do not warrant separate sub-articles, especially those focused on age-specific categories. Such articles are reserved exclusively for continental championships that attract significant media attention and widespread recognition. EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa. EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 OFC U-16 Men's Championship squads and the many other cases cited in that AFD. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will improve the article by adding every team squad 197.165.171.179 (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Shanhe University

Shanhe University (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 do not believe that this article meets the notability criteria. While some news sources have reported on it, it does not appear to be a long-lasting phenomena that would be of relevance to anyone on English Wikipedia. Most sources discussing it seem to merely use it as a vehicle to discuss educational inequality in China, and it doesn't seem to have captured public attention for any notable period of time. --IntergalacticOboist (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM / WP:NOT. It's possible there is a burst of news coverage around this topic, but it should be redirected to an article about internet jokes, at most. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Shooterwalker. Seems to be a short-lived meme that doesn't really garner enough coverage for even a proper Stub. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

FireHOL

FireHOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: GNG. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

WJED-LP

WJED-LP (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 was recently proposed for deletion with the rationale No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. However, there was a previous contested PROD in 2017 — by the same editor — with the rationale No indication of meeting WP:BASIC. Created by blocked spam account. That means we have to come here. All I have to add to either rationale is that this is nominally a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in 2016, which were more "lenient" than the sitewide standards that should have applied at the time and only have since 2021. LPFM stations, and in fact virtually any station started within the last decade, are usually GNG failures. While this theoretically can be redirected to the List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Puerto Rico, I don't think this should be an alternative to deletion in this case — Puerto Rican stations seem more prone to redirects being overwritten by IPs, so I see little value in retaining the article history. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Only one lone Tapatalk forum has even talked about this station. Delete on the grounds in re: common overwriting of IPs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Armudly

Armudly (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 GEOLAND as there is no evidence that this place exists, let alone is legally recognised. GEOnet Names Server is not a reliable source per the RSN discussion. The location in the article is the ruined village of Mos, not Armudly.

Ineligible for prod since it was already prodded and declined by Explicit in 2021 on the grounds that it exists on sister projects, however these are clearly just copy/pastes of the EN Wikipedia article on Persian, Georgian, and Malay Wiki. Azeri wiki (the only sister project that would actually matter in this case) doesn't have a corresponding article. There is also no reliably-sourced information to merge here.

This article was mass-created by Carlossuarez46 along with many, many other failing articles. In the same 60 second period in which they created this article (01:27 19 August 2008), they created three others, and 852 articles in the same day. FOARP (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. FOARP (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

2018 Supercopa de Catalunya

2018 Supercopa de Catalunya (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 appreciate this article has only recently been created and had to go through the AfC process to do so, but there is simply no need for standalone articles on these matches. The Supercopa de Catalunya was a novelty trophy created by the Catalan Federation so they could expand the existing Copa de Catalunya to more clubs but still wanted to have a guaranteed match between Barcelona and Espanyol (probably not anticipating the latter's decline and the rise of Girona in the region). So the tournament itself is notable, but clearly wasnt taken very seriously as demonstrated by the attendance being about 10k each time when Barcelona have 70k season tickets. The tournament then seemed to die altogether due to COVID and has not been played since. The 2 paragraphs of information in this article (and that for 2014) summarising the match can be and should be merged into the Supercopa article. Crowsus (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

2014 Supercopa de Catalunya

2014 Supercopa de Catalunya (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 appreciate this article has only recently been created and had to go through the AfC process to do so, but there is simply no need for standalone articles on these matches. The Supercopa de Catalunya was a novelty trophy created by the Catalan Federation so they could expand the existing Copa de Catalunya to more clubs but still wanted to have a guaranteed match between Barcelona and Espanyol (probably not anticipating the latter's decline and the rise of Girona in the region). So the tournament itself is notable, but clearly wasn't taken very seriously as demonstrated by the attendance being about 10k each time when Barcelona have 70k season tickets. The tournament then seemed to die altogether due to COVID and has not been played since. The 2 paragraphs of information in this article (and that for 2018) summarising the match can be and should be merged into the Supercopa article. Crowsus (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY, I've added plenty of reliable news sources and reviews in article such as BBC News, Independent Urdu, 24 News, India Times, DAWN etc. Siginificant coverage found on google. It sometimes spells as Mohabbat Gumshuda Meri in google sources. Siasat Daily of India and The News International of Pakistan called it one of the trending show in India [7] and Pakistan [8].Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - The significant coverage being claimed is not reliable. Non-bylined pieces falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, and churnalism do not count towards notability. If the show was worthy of notice, the press would have written more in-depth than a brief mention, mention in a reference about an actress, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Hello; I am opposed to this being deleted: notable cast, notable creator, coverage for verification. https://www.youlinmagazine.com/story/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-a-refreshing-tale-of-teenage-romance/MjUyOA== Review in Youlin (bylined) for example. A redirect (and merge) either to the director or to the list of the programs broadcast by the network but a Keep would not shock me [is also good, see below]. The coverage mentioned by Libraa10 is also an indication. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (edited)

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.

+Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)

I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep i add repction sources on series by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri: A Refreshing Tale of Teenage Romance

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved with new sourcing which demonstrates it passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yorke Sherwood

Yorke Sherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not pass the required notability guideline for WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG per lack of sources. Google search did not show anything indicative of their notability. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  For silent film, Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 19:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is not rare for actors of early cinema to be uncredited. Given the number of roles he had, he could be considered meeting Wikipedia:NACTOR as a prolific actor in notable productions ("The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (emphasis mine) -Mushy Yank. 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I checked a number of his roles, they're verifiable so Keep per my argument above. Fwiw, trying to improve the page btw. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)

  PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.

  1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

  The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

  Emphasis mine. Prolific.

  I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.

  2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.

  3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.

  4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.

  Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. There are many sources discussing his work in google books; usually in the context of individual parts within specific films. He was a busy character actor that portrayed a range of parts from small roles to mid-sized parts and even a few principal character roles. Altogether the sourcing collectively meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cogs Hollow

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cogs Hollow
• Articles for deletion/Cogs Hollow (2nd nomination)

Cogs Hollow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of stop motion films#Stop motion TV series per WP:ATD. It's a charming little children's program which is viewable on both YouTube and in the Internet Archive. Unfortunately it has not been written about other than in a few sales catalogues by the WHSmith company which sold the video. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Every animatied series is notable, no matter where its produed or published originally. Lack of coverage in media doesnt mean its non-notable. What actually happened me thinks is that British Animation historians that were supposed to do their job failed to do so this series largely went under documented. Considering how resent this series is produced in early 1990s or late 1980ss. DoctorHver (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  That is not at all Wikipedia policy based. Verifiable coverage is required for inclusion in Wikipedia, not a blanket "everything is notable" opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of stop motion films#Stop motion TV series. It is listed there.-Mushy Yank. 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Christian Ramírez (footballer, born 1993)

Christian Ramírez (footballer, born 1993) (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)

Notability is questionable but worth discussing. I'm struggling to find anything else than databases, primary sources and match reports - which is the case in the Spanish Wikipedia too. He is certainly not an accomplished footballer, having represented two elite clubs, and playing 70 minutes in the cup and 139 minutes in the league for these two clubs respectively. I did find a piece about him being champion of Belize, though the league of Belize is very, very low-ranking. I am open to suggestions about more coverage. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ken Abante

Ken Abante (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 the sources are either blog posts, pass mentioned or written by the subject like this and this. All the sources Fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV cannot be established too. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Adrian Wilson (actor)

Adrian Wilson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete Redirect (see comment below) - 100+ episodes on Passions is good, but that is not sufficient for WP:NACTOR I don't think (it is not multiple roles) and I couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage to support the subject's notability. Also, the article has been unreferenced for a fair while. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and South Africa. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Passions per WP:ATD. Actor with only one notable role so fails WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage that I could find, so fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Ah yes, I always forget about the redirect option. Good call @4meter4 - completely concur. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Atsuko Kawada

Atsuko Kawada (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)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up no evidence of secondary sources with significant coverage. The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia page did not seem to have any especially substantial references either. I therefore submit that the subject meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR. There may be better sources in Japanese, in which case I would happily rescind my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and Japan. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a nominal performer. No significant roles and no substantial sources. Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have a look at the corresponding Japanese article. Plenty of significant roles. -Mushy Yank. 10:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Can't find any secondary sources here either. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: and improve with the Ja WP for a start; she had significant (lead/main) roles in multiple notable TV productions. -Mushy Yank. 10:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

ADS-AC

ADS-AC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements, and the user who dePRODed went admitted on my Talk page that they do not have sources to establish notability.

This has also been tagged for notability issues for four months. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Delete if you decide so, but please don't vex me with more discussions. This has been going on for 3 months with undecided results, i want no more discussion, this is too much, do what you want. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Come again? You can abstain. Nobody is forcing you to participate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I abstain, i already said everything. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  But please end it faster. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I also did not admit that i don't have sources to establish notability, i just said that it is old and i cannot find no more sources, as things in web disappear in time. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  This AfD is here to discuss whether this article should be deleted. Nobody here asked you to ramble about a topic of your choice. If you do not have anything to contribute with respect to whether this article should be deleted, stay away and stop cluttering this page. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have to contribute, but as i said i already said everything. Only just please don't put words into my mouth, as you did when you started this request for deletion (at the beginning of this page). Thank you. Tkorrovi (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're clearly not here to have an on-topic discussion, and I have no business with you. Goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, if you have no business about the matter, then who should go away? Tkorrovi (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Is that text still the same? Anyway, the "user who dePRODed", one can see that in your talk page, the only user who talked with you about ADS-AC, was me. Tkorrovi (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  The article has references of sources, and what is this lack of notability about, lack of sources, if it is not over complicated issue that can be interpreted in many ways, but it is a very simple article. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced article about 'experimental' software. I'd have gone A7 with it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I could find no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sparidaans

Jeffrey Sparidaans (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Could find no sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - a great deal of coverage in Dutch-language media (Omroep Brabant, Brabants Dagblad, Eindhovens Dagblad, Algemeen Dagblad). Additionally, coverage available in darts media sources (Darts News, Darts King and Darts Actueel) signifying he's a notable figure in darts. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Mega Society

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mega Society
• Articles for deletion/Mega Society (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Mega Society (second nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Mega Society (third nomination)

Mega Society (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 a notable society, it does not meet WP:NORG. It has been through 5 previous deletion discussions - deleted 3 times, no consensus once and kept once (in 2008). There are multiple sources on the page that I have carefully reviewed (I have collapsed the source analysis as it is long). The TL;DR is that some of its members are notable (and have pages): particularly Marilyn vos Savant. However, all other mentions in the sources are limited to the society's entry qualification which is supposedly 1 in a million IQ range (but is not, in fact). Many sources repeat that claim - some more critically than others - but no secondary sources go beyond this and tell us what this society does, what its outputs are, what its remit or purpose is, etc. It is essentially a club with a difficult entry requirement that does nothing notable. The founder, Ronald K. Hoeflin has a page (and also a string of other non notable societies to his name). Redirect there would be one possible AfD outcome.

Source Analysis

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT https://megasociety.org/ (multiple) The society's own web page, and in addition, their journal, Noesis, are clearly primary sources and also lack independence for the same reason. It is clear that any historian who wanted to write a history (a secondary source) about this society would find a gold mine in the pages of Noesis. However we cannot use that for a tertiary encyclopaedic article. We must wait for the historians first. Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal. Cannot see any indication it is not independent I have given it a yes on the assumption that the copies available [9] are what was published, but I have not been able to find the original yet to verify this. This one goes a little further than most articles, but it is really about what Mega Society is not. It verifies its claims, and then subjects them to some scrutiny. The Mega Test, he says, measures "doggedness and reference skills." But again, there is really no ORGDEPTH here. It is all about who is allowed to join and nothing about what the society does. Nothing about outputs or impact or anything that would normally make a society notable. All we really see is it is notable for using a home made test to allegedly find the super intelligent (and doesn't really). That is all. Rex Jung (2014-06-17). "The Science of Genius". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. G. Miller (May 1, 2012). "Get smart". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Sandy Rovner (2015-01-01). "When High IQs Hang Out". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Small concerns about the similarity between articles (see below) but not enough to doubt the independence of this excellent source. The first and lst of these have essentially the same text about the society despite being different authors. It would look like plagiarism, except that what is included is rather limited. Basically it is that the society claims to represent the 99.9999th percentile. The first one also mentions Langdon. Beyond the entry requirement, there is nothing about what the society is or does, nor history, nor activity. There is no in depth description of the society. It is basically just "pass this test, join this exclusive society". The first article adds "Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately" but there is nothing more critical or in depth than this. None of these meet WP:ORGDEPTHn and you cannot create a page about an organisation based entirely upon its entry requirements. Anderson, Jack (November 28, 1988). "Is 176 IQ Enough in White House?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 7, 2024. Lemley, Brad (March 17, 1985). "The Mind of Genius". The Washington Post Magazine. pp. 14, 23. The work is reliable although this uncritical reporting does not do them credit. Nevertheless they get a pass for reliability in general. No ORGDEPTH. The Omni test was written by Ronald Hoeflin, founder of the Mega Society, a high-I.Q. club that makes Mensa look like preschool. Mensa membership is open to I.Q.s above 133 -- the smartest 2 percent of the American population. The Mega entrance requirement is an I.Q. of 176 or above, the 99.999th percentile, or one in a million people. Uncritical, errant, but certainly nothing from which an article can be written. Secondary for the Mega Society although it is a news article with some primary information. Joshua Harris (1997-05-14). "Let's See, Complain Is to Club As Order Takeout Is to Diner". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2024-10-06. The only information about the society is that it has 16 members and entry is through the mega test. The remainder of the information is about Maxim and Langdon (running an unlisenced IQ test). News report. Primary for the news reporting and there is no analysis. vos Savant, Marilyn Mach (1985). Omni I.Q. Quiz Contest. McGraw-Hill. pp. 31–36. ISBN 0-07-039377-X. vos Savant was writing on behalf of teh society, of which she was a member. Omni collaborated with the society and published their quiz. This is therefore clearly not independent. I presume vos Savant would be reliable about the society. 6 pages on the society, although a large chunk is just data. However this would be more the kind of thing you could write an article about, if it were independent and secondary. vos Savant is providing the societies lines in this article. That is a primary source. Aviv, Rachel (August 2, 2006). "The Intelligencer". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2006-09-23. The article is about Ronald Hoeflin and the Mega Society gets one passing mention as one of his many societies. Fella, Answer (March 1, 2006). "World's Smartest Fella". Esquire. Archived from the original on 2006-11-10. Retrieved 2006-10-29. It's a gossip column. But at least it states its sources. Passing mention. Still, Kevin Langdon, editor of the Mega Society Web site (the Mega Society is to Mensa what Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to Harriet Miers), while acknowledging the limitations of psychometric testing, offers a candidate for the honor [of 2nd most intelligent American]: Bob Dylan. Derfner, Larry (August 8, 2003). "It smarts!". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2007-10-01. Retrieved 2006-10-29. The article contains a small error. Vos Savant's 228 IQ was measured in childhood and is not her IQ now. It was measured at a time where it was actually a quotient divisible by age. Children with very high IQ scores see those scores regress towards the mean (whilst still remaining above average) as they get older. However this does not detract from the overall reliability of the newspaper. Dr. Frank Luger is a member and membership was 30 at that time. That is all. Nothing about the society. Certainly not WP:ORGDEPTH. No inherited notability even if Luger were notable, but he has no Wikipedia page, so apparently is not. It is news reporting about the membership. WP:PRIMARYNEWS although that is moot for this purpose as it fails on SIGCOV. McWhirter, Norris; McFarlan, Donald (1988). The Guinness book of records : 1989. Internet Archive. Enfield, Middlesex : Guinness Pub. ISBN 978-0-85112-878-8. Information in Noesis makes it clear that Mega Society approached the Guinness Book of Records over the listing. Thus it is not independent. Talks about Vos Savant as most intelligent person. Mentions that she and 2 others are members of this society. No information about the society. Depends what you use it for. It is primary for the record, secondary for other uses. Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable. All we have is information about vos Savant, with this passing mention: Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable. Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. This is looking at the Mega Test itself. It is a thorough look at the test (summing up by calling it number pulverisation) but it has no coverage of the eponymous society. Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. Does not mention the society at all N/A - no mention Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples. The source is reliable even though the one sentence mention contains an error. Single sentence on page 113. All it says is entry requirement is a 176 IQ (one in a million). That is all. And that turns out to be wrong. Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. ISBN 9780521739115. [Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160 Does not mention the society at all N/A - no mention

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychology, and Social science. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ronald K. Hoeflin per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ronald K. Hoeflin as per discussion above and my own experience working through the sourcing for the page, which, both pro and con is very, very thin. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. An old organization, well-known within the high-IQ society community, and a real curiosity from the point of view of the history of psychometrics in America. A number of its members were notable -- some even notorious -- in their own right: Rosner, vos Savant, Langan, Raniere... I understand that Paddles the cat is better covered by secondary sources, but I prefer an encyclopedia that has more than well-attested trivialities to offer. Let us preserve knowledge, however niche, let us not sacrifice this article. K-trivial (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin. Notability for an organization is not inherited from members who might be notable. Fails NCORP & NORG, fails GNG. Obscure organization of 36 members. Previous AfDs were full of sockpuppets. Wonder how many AT&T and MS Azure IPs will show up this time. Polygnotus (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The high-IQ world has only a few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active. I am unsure of the impetus behind the constant recommendations to delete valuable information on such a topic. UnitsReceived (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) — UnitsReceived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  ...few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active How should I interpret that claim in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Society (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top One Percent Society and One-in-a-Thousand Society and Epimetheus Society? Only the Omega Society article hasn't been deleted yet, because it has yet to be written. Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you are not a member of any of these societies or others, such as MENSA or the Triple Nine Society. The Epimetheus Society, Prometheus Society, and Mega Society are widely known to the vast majority of members of these organizations. Multiple external sources discuss each of them, and given that non-members do not have access to the actual content, forums, discussions, or events taking place daily, it is impossible for non-members to know how active each society truly is. UnitsReceived (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  You misunderstood what I wrote. You claimed that each of the societies listed on that article were notable. I showed that 4/6 articles were deleted for lack of notability, and one has not been written yet. Polygnotus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not an argument for the article to be kept. If what you're saying is true, it's not verifiable, which means that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is wholly irrelevant. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin. Seconding all of the points made by Polygnotus, Jjazz, and Sirfurboy. Throughout this article's long history very little constructive editing has occurred, and a non-insignificant amount of work has been put in to keep a few IP editors' contribs either NPOV, as well as the removal of a level of citation overkill that makes it extremely hard to claim good-faith contributions. I have also seen these editors then insert links to the page on many articles related to human intelligence generally, as well as some straight up incoherent additions of it. It is remarkable how most of the IPs/new users that have decided this article's survival is absolutely critical not only write in a similar tone (ie. thinly veiled condescension despite inability to engage with basic standards for contributing to articles constructively) but also similar tactics (ie. severe citation overkill, then an invocation of a good-faith defense when questioned on the irrelevance of their additions). I genuinely do not know what motivates a claim such as the above, that EVERY society noted on Hoeflin's page is notable and active. I have seen little to demonstrate that Mega Society was ever really "active" as a notable organisation given its member count and skeptical tone of the coverage it received (specifically in regard to the test itself, the only qualifier for membership) a few decades ago. It seems rather obvious to both Hoeflin and contemporaneous sources that the test itself provides dubious efficacy and has an standardized nature. IQ tests as a whole are still not direct proxies for intelligence, I don't see why an IQ test that didn't try to conform to the format of its peers, rejected any form of standardisation and outside feedback, which was used as an admission tool for a group of members that hardly cracked the double digits, is the foundation of an article that is of use to any reader. Transgenderoriole (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin per points already raised. The society is mentioned in reliable sources, but the references aren't really about the society. Hoeflin is maybe notable, as are other reported members, but the society itself is not. CAVincent (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  The three most well-established and oldest 4-sigma-plus IQ societies, despite being mentioned in reliable sources, are not considered notable? To each his own. UnitsReceived (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  An account created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD is not considered credible? To each his own. CAVincent (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (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 feel this was mistakenly closed as keep at the previous AfD. To be clear, the first game, Godzilla: Monster of Monsters was determined to be notable. For the second game, Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters, only one review was found: [10], [11]. So again, I suggest this article should be redirected to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel. Mika1h (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There are entries on the game with WP:SIGCOV in Lees, J. D.; Cerasini, M.; Lees, Marc (1998). "Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters". The Official Godzilla Compendium: A 40 Year Retrospective. Random House. ISBN 9780679888222. and in Weiss, Brett (2012). "Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters". Classic Home Video Games, 1985-1988: A Complete Reference Guide. McFarland & Company. ISBN 9781476601410. There is also less substantial coverage of the game in the following books: [12], [13], [14]. Along with the game review this meets WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

4meter4 Looking at the Classic Home Video Games book, it says "this reference work provides detailed descriptions and reviews of every U.S.-released game for the Nintendo NES, the Atari 7800, and the Sega Master System". In such case, I'm not sure whether it should be used for notability purposes - by that every U.S. released game for all of these platforms would be notable, which doesn't sound right to me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect Most of the coverage cited by 4meter4 seems trivial or borderline. While a page *might* be possible, it seems altogether better to combine the game with its predecessor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note the AfD result for the other game was incorrectly added to the talk page of this article. This has now changed to "no consensus". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War

List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian 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)

Per WP:NLIST, in order for a standalone list to be notable the list must itself be a topic covered in reliable sources: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." In contrast to the list of Russian generals killed, there is not discussion of Ukrainian 'flag officer' deaths as a set. Since there are no reliable sources that discuss ukrainian 'flag officer lossses' as a set, this list article does not meet the notablity guidelines. This is in contrast to Russian generals killed during the invasion of Ukraine--they are discussed as a set in reliable sources. To take another example, reliable sources discuss 'non water floods' as a set and therefore this group or set satisfies the notability requirements for a list article: List of non-water floods. There is no reliable source in the article under discussion for deletion here that discusses Ukrainian 'flag losses' as a set. List notability can be tricky to understand, but the key is that the set must be discussed in reliable sources as a set. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no problem with the list. The article name does not mention killed, it clearly says losses (not nesesary killed). The profile of those losses are top-tier Ukrainian Flag officers or Generals/Admirals, for example Hayduk was the Admiral of the Ukrainian Navy, Kutsyn was the Chief of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Army and Koval was the Ministry of Defense. It's unusual hence the list.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think flag officers are significant enough for their own list. There has been some discussion of losses eg [15] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: List is predicated on a notable topic with entries supported by reliable sources, even if there are no sources covering the topic matter as a whole "set". --Katangais (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep:, the list is notable as it covers the longer Russo-Ukrainian War from 2014 and not just the russian invasion from 2022 when many Russian officers where killed in short order wich gained more international attention. But this does not mean we should forget the pre-invasion losses Shadow4dark (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Losses among flag officers are notable enough to warrant their own article/list. Plus, the article is comprehensive to include all losses since 2014. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Lakhan Singh (cricketer)

Lakhan Singh (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t believe the subject meets WP:GNG criteria. Furthermore, there is no significant coverage available about the subject as a cricketer, which directly fails WP:NCRIC. Additionally, the creator of the article is currently blocked. Baqi:) (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I could find no significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. There's little to none SIGCOV to be found. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails notability and significant coverage criterias.

  Shrug02 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cyber Bandits

Cyber Bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe that this film meets the criteria for WP:NFILM and, to my understanding, it has not received significant coverage or achieved notability otherwise. Merging information from this article into the article about its director may be more appropriate. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There is a substantial coverage of the film in multiple offline books: Craddock, Jim, ed. (2004). "Cyber Bandits". VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever. Gale. p. 208., Nash, Jay Robert; Ross, Stanley Ralph (1986). "Cyber Bandits". The Motion Picture Guide, Volumes 1-10. Cinebook. p. 83., and Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (1997). "Cyber Bandits". Video Movie Guide 1998. Ballantine Books. p. 238. All have critical commentary in addition to cast info, plot synopses, etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: added a few things to what has been added after nomination. Meets GNG and/or NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to additions from 4meter4 and Mushy Yank. Toughpigs (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sven Groen

Sven Groen (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Gets a brief mention in Chaplin's book Darts: Skills - Tactics - Techniques, but not enough to count toward WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise I couldn't find any independent WP:RS. There is a lot more coverage of a politician named Sven Groen, but that is a different person. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Rizal Barellano

Rizal Barellano (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks significant success in the sport. Google Books - 1 result, only a mention. Google Search - less than 80 results, not prominent. 12 results in Google News, the only one that went beyond a mention was: The first one in 2008 was Rizal Barellano, who was eliminated in the preliminary round by Miloslac Navratil and of whom you never heard again ... Rizal Barellano, born 1965, reached 2006 the quarterfinals of the Asia Pacific Cup and was the first Philippine player invited to the PDC World Championship. It doesn't look he is still playing. Still nothing much. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. I could find no independent significant coverage. Web searches came up with the standard mastercaller and PDC website stuff, but those can't be used towards notability as they are sports statistics tables. He doesn't in any of the darts reference books. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sino-Kannauj War

Sino-Kannauj 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)

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.

Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf«Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf«Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf«Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf«Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf«Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:

  • p. 125

    In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.

  • p. 124

    But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.

  The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf«Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:

  • p. 126

    On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

  HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf«Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf«Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf«Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf«Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Band Aid (band)

Band Aid (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOPAGE. Band Aid is the collective name of the numerous permutations of celebrity musicians who have recorded and released different versions of the charity song Do They Know It's Christmas. Band Aid has never released any other song, just this one. Most (all?) of the information on this page is duplicated on the Do They Know It's Christmas article. All we're achieving by having two pages is to have the same thing explained twice in different ways. This article should be redirected to that page. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - The nomination appears to be based on worries about repetitive text rather than any evidence that Band Aid fails to qualify for notability requirements. The group is overwhelmingly notable. The solution to the repetitive text problem is to prune the song article so it is about the song specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  As I said in the nom, it's a WP:NOPAGE issue, not notability. We can cover everything we need on a single page. Popcornfud (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Unconvincing. That same guideline encourages separate articles if the first one gets too unwieldy. That's the problem with the song article, so it can be trimmed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that strategy. Every single iteration of Band Aid (the band) is directly tied to each iteration of Do They Know It's Christmas. There's nothing to explain about the band that isn't also directly relevant to the song — they're essentially the same entities.

For example, the background detail — the reason why the band was put together — is also the reason the song was written and recorded. There would be barely any detail that would be uniquely relevant to one article and not the other. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I get that the two have an entwined history but it is a valid content overlap. There can always be a trimming down of material through the normal editing process in both articles. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

58th

58th (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:TOOSOON, the film will released on 2025 and it shouldn't create a Too Soon article and we will wait on 2025. Royiswariii Talk! 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How about switching to "draft" article rather than delete instead? I know it's too soon but it's officially confirmed by GMA that 58th will be released soon next year as long as the article has been improved with better reliable sources. GeniusTaker (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible but it much better to delete it to wait a more reliable sources in 2025. Royiswariii Talk! 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify at least until reviews of the film are available. I don't see why we should delete when the teaser is out which indicates that a release will happen. See also this. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I agree to Draftify and wait for sources on 2025. Royiswariii Talk! 14:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify per above.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify. It's WP:TOOSOON for the film to have an article since it is still unreleased, though it may become notable once it has been released or gains more coverage from reliable sources as the time comes near or after its release. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Antonio Muñiz

Antonio Muñiz (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 biography of a living artist. The article seems to be entirely promotional, and the artist not notable at all. I can't find anything that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that would come close to WP:GNG, and nothing that approaches any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST. Of the references in the article, three don't mention Muñiz at all, and the other is a local art blog.

The article was created by Abe21lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has no contributions unrelated to this topic), who wrote on the help desk have created one for my partner, Antonio Muñiz, as you can see (I guess). I also manage his website (http://www.anotniomuniz-art.com) and his Facebook page. (diff)

Consequently, I think we should delete the article. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Mexico, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing at all here to suppose WP:GNG would be passed and sure enough, a WP:BEFORE demonstrates categorically that there's nothing more out there. So push the big red button... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Vittorio Zoboli

Vittorio Zoboli (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)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up a number of listings/database type sites, but no substantial secondary sources to really establish the subject's notability with respect to WP:NMOTORSPORT in my view. The article has been without citations for a long time - I did find a reasonable primary source for the Subject's Formula 4 championship win, which I have added, but I don't think that this is sufficient for notability. That said, I would happily defer to WP:MOTORSPORTS for their more expert opinion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Italy. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is presented in (truly) non-encyclopaedic style but Zoboli is notable. He ticks WP:NMOTORSPORT having driven full seasons of top-level F1 feeder series (Formula 3000) and has twice competed in non-championship Formula One events – even finishing 3rd at the 1993 Formula One Indoor Trophy. Sparse internet coverage on a driver whose career spanned between 1988 and 2006 hardly surprises me – more thorough coverage is likely to exist elsewhere. MSport1005 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to agree with MSport1005 that coverage here is going to be in offline in books, magazines, etc. I can see a bunch of coverage in snippet view in google books which leads me to this conclusion. In this case we should follow WP:NMOTORSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - This is going to be a nitpicky point, for which apologies in advance, but WP:NMOTORSPORT #2 says "A driver or rider who has competed for at least one full season in ... a top-level feeder series to Formula One." I note, and I am going on the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 articles, that none of his seasons were full seasons. That is, in all of them he missed at least one race. Also that WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 specifies Formula One Championship races. That said, I am content enough to go with keep, though the quality of the article is poor. The one reference I was able to find, for the F4 win, contradicted the year that was originally in the article, which doesn't give me a warm feeling that the rest of it is in good shape at all. I would try and edit myself, but I am certainly not at all well-versed in the field. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Deley

Johnny Deley (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks significant success in the sport. Not prominent - less than 60 Google Search results, zero Google Books results, then there are 13 Google News results but all 13 are mentions and not WP:SIGCOV. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. There is some coverage of Deley in The John Lowe Story: Inside Pro Darts with the World Champion, but this is only one source and its an autobiography so it arguably is not independent. Otherwise I couldn't find anything. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Vic Hubbard

Vic Hubbard (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks success in the sport. Only around 100 Google Search results. Only one Google News result. Google Books only produces false positives. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. All the sources I could find were on a different Vic Hubbard who was a race car driver. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reece Robinson (darts player)

Reece Robinson (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I found some passing coverage in darts books by Patrick Chaplin and Nigel Boeg but not anything that could be considered in-depth. Otherwise that is all I found. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Serah (actress)

Serah (actress) (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)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of substance to support the subject's notability with regard to WP:NACTOR. Based on the scanty information in the article as it stands, the subject wasn't mentioned in any review I could find. That said, it is difficult to unearth any needles from the haystack of results that come from only being able to search for a one word name, and a search on the subject's full name (extracted from https://web.archive.org/web/20090602050929/http://www.serahs.net:80/) turned up just four hits. I would happily rescind my nomination if someone, e.g. the creating author, were able to support notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Before commenting (WP:BEFORE), I did a bit of research on the subject but didn't find much substantial information. Therefore, I agree with the nominator. Additionally, the article currently lacks any cited sources. Baqi:) (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTRESS/WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Unable to find any references. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Omran Daqneesh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Omran Daqneesh
• Articles for deletion/Omran Daqneesh (2nd nomination)

Omran Daqneesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, WP:BLP, and no WP:LASTING. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Peter Fieber (footballer, born 1989)

Peter Fieber (footballer, born 1989) (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 Soccerway, he only played 19 matches at professional level before moving to lower leagues then disappeared. The sources provided are either passing mentions and transfer announcements. Being the son of a former footballer, notability is not inherited from relatives. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage on this player. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• As long as it's verifiable, which it is, I think two-three sentences should be 'merged and redirected to Peter Fieber. The reason is that it would be bad to not mention the son at the father's page. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

Bart Simpson (filmmaker) (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)

after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, Falls WP:GNG. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This would come in at number 10 at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for longest extant hoax articles if proven to be a hoax.

Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Angersbach

Angersbach (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 GNG; no people with the surname on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 14:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A redirect to Wartenberg, Hesse is an ATD. Angersbach is a geo dab in the German Wikipedia, which points to two subdivisions of municipalities. The Angersbach in Isen, Bavaria isn't mentioned in our article, but the one in Wartenberg is. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wartenberg, Hesse#Geography as a valid WP:ATD. No notability as a surname. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cantaloupe Hotels

Cantaloupe Hotels (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)

Small Sri Lankan hotel chain. Aside from the primary source citations in this article, the rest are mostly a mixture of routine press coverage about new property openings and awards, therefore I don’t believe this crosses the threshold of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP. As nom says coverage is rather routine. Created by a single purpose editor so possible WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2025

Miss Universe 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^{فث   Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Absolutiva (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify for now. Not sure WP:CRYSTALBALL is an appropriate rationale, as per Mims Mentor, it is almost undoubtedly going to happen with early stages and nominations already in progress. I wouldn't be opposed to a keep either though, although imo I would probably wait a while for more sources before it being moved back to mainspace. Procyon117 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature (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 topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify at least the first point, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While there is a clear selection criteria, that criteria is broad and conveys minimal significance. That's why I find the list indiscriminate and not suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you twice remove the AfD template from the page? And saying it is not nominated when you just voted here is not evidently consistent..... -Mushy Yank. 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC); edited 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The template was removed from List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, which has not been mentioned anywhere in this deletion discussion up to this point. It would be out of procedure to add that article to this nomination after the discussion opened. I will remove the template from that page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep What Oscar-related list do you consider important? Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not this one, clearly, since it's up for nomination. Do you have an actual rationale behind your keep !vote, preferably addressing the concerns that have been raised by the nomimator and by me? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if you're asking me, I would consider lists such as the nominees at Academy Award for Best Animated Feature or the submissions in Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country suitable for inclusion. Those films have been specifically selected for further recognition, which gives them more significance than merely checking the boxes to be eligible does. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Should I merge the submissions onto Best Animated Feature article? Espngeek (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  To me, the issue is not whether or not this has standalone notability; the issue is that the information is so trivial that it's not worth mentioning anywhere as a matter of editorial discretion, whether that's in a standalone list or in another article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  What makes this one so trivial? Espngeek (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Espngeek in short, no (see above). You would have to initiate another AfD but can I suggest you wait for this one to be closed so that we know what others think? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The argumment used could also be used to delete the 97 pages of the international feature films submissions, since those films were also selected for further recognition from AMPAS, and most of the countries "generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning". This list is vital to map the competition, especially now that AMPAS is even more international than ever. Martineden83 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I want to be clear – I am not arguing to delete the international feature film lists in my comment you linked. When I said "selected for further recognition", I meant that a party separate from the filmmakers (whether AMPAS or some other industry group) had picked it, instead of the filmmakers submitting it. That is a major difference between those lists and this one. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  So, the International submissions are fine, yet the Animated Feature subs are unencyclopedic and questionably trivial? Espngeek (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I also disagree that the international films are equivalent – those submissions were formally selected by each country's film committee, while in this list, producers can self-nominate whatever animated films they made. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Even if producers were capable of "self-nominate" their own movies (which they are not, the submitted films are shortlisted only after reaching the category rules), the annual list is gennerally small (last year it barely had 30 films) and does not include all animated features released in the year. Martineden83 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  A note on terminology since you said "shortlisted" – these are not shortlisted submissions like in other categories (example). A more apt comparison would be to compare this list to the list of films eligible for Best Picture. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I see there's been disagreement about the international lists being in the same boat as this one. I'm happy to concede that point, but it doesn't really change my view about this particular list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Carl Meyers

The result was Withdrawn‎ Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Carl Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Being a member of Regents of the University of Michigan does not make the subject pass notability for politicians. It has been established that the the subject of this article won a state wide Michigan election as it can be seen here. Therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:NPOL. The Regents of the University of Michigan appear to be a statewide elected officials. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article. User:Ibjaja055 either did not read the article or did not read the guideline. Meyers is a statewide elected official. Others elected to the Regents have articles: Jordan Acker, Mark Bernstein (University of Michigan), Denise Ilitch, Ronald Weiser. Wolverine MI (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Wolverine MI I read the article and I also read the Guidelines. Somehow, I didn't know how I missed this There are eight regents, two of whom are elected to an eight-year term by statewide ballot every two years... as stated in the Board of Regents Election. I might have been carried away with the norms of University elections. Therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. By the way, I see on your profile that you are a new page reviewer. I don't know how it works exactly but can you review the articles I have started? Wolverine MI (talk) 13:14, 24 November 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.

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators (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 finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, Horse racing, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The title is badly written but I do think sports commentators who specialize in covering horse races is an appropriate list topic under WP:NLIST. There appears to be enough of them on this one network for it to be a substantial list.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - this needs a large reformatting to bring it in line with standards (and maybe a re-titling), but the information contained within it seems like it adds value to the encyclopedia. Certainly offers more useful information than many of the other Category:Lists of horse racing commentators. RachelTensions (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. I could not find any sources either. The only reasonble keep would be due to the length of the parent but I don't see a reason this information couldn't just be included there. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. I think this is an appropriate fork of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS, but I would also support a merge to that article.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Warren Hue

Warren Hue (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)

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I found one good album review here: [16] He also gets a decent brief critical nod in this Pitchfork review on another artist's album on which he was a guest performer. If a few more decent references are found he could be notable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep SEVEN pieces in NME - New Musical Express? You're already a shoe-in. Bandwagon's got editorial oversight, it's an RS. Engadget? We're at WP:GNG, folks. Hue's notable in any colour. See what I did there? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above that together pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Primary School

St. John Vianney Roman Catholic 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Other than that, it has no sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Found nothing about this specific school other than its website. Search results only produce websites of other schools with the same name. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Wisconsin Lutheran School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Lutheran School
• Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Lutheran School (2nd nomination)

Wisconsin Lutheran 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fairly small school with absolutely no sources whatsoever. Not seeing evidence of significant, in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NSCHOOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to lack notability. I found only one independent reference and it is primary and provides no coverage.

I also nominating the episcopal units: Te Pīhopatanga o Te Upoko o Te Ika, Te Pīhopatanga o Manawa o Te Wheke Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tai Tokerau Te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tairāwhiti Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:DIOCESE, but these are above the level of diocese, sitting between diocese and province. But in fact, there are several independent reliable sources in GBooks, and I don't know how the nominator missed them: e.g. Te Hāhi Mihinare | The Māori Anglican Church (published by Bridget Williams Books). StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa is the equivalent of an internal ecclesiastical province within the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and is made up of several diocese equivalents (the other "pihopatangas" nominated), and per WP:DIOCESE these articles are almost always kept. As for sources, StAnselm notes one good source, and there are others: Peter Donovan's The Religions of New Zealanders, Mark Chapman's Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction (section on indigenous leadership in Anglican churches), Anderson, Binney and Harris's Tangata Whenua, Shawn Strout's Of Thine Own Have We Given Thee, and T. John Wright's "The Treaty of Waitangi" in the International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions in Education, plus coverage in major news outlets like Stuff.co.nz and the NZ Herald. These ecclesiastical units are also covered in Melton and Baumann's Religions of the World, the standard encyclopedic reference to religious organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaylord Ravenal

Gaylord Ravenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have not been able to find significant sources that talk about the subject. Jinnllee90 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Much scholarship has been published on Ferber's novel and its characters, largely because of the importance of Kern and Hammerstein's musical Show Boat which is widely recognized as a landmark musical. There is significant coverage of the character in Kreuger, Miles (1977). Showboat: The Story of a Classic American Musical. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502275-0., Block, Geoffrey (1997). Enchanted Evenings: The Broadway Musical from Show Boat to Sondheim. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510791-8.,Decker, Todd (2013). Show Boat: Performing Race in an American Musical. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190250539., Blacklegs, Card Sharps, and Confidence Men: Nineteenth-Century Mississippi River Gambling Stories. LSU Press. 2010. ISBN 9780807137369. among a host of other books.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per 4meter4. When you add these refs to the article, see if you can note the most important plot differences from the musical's script that affect Gaylord's character in the 3 film versions. For example, in 1951, a much shorter period of time has gone by at the end when Ravenal returns to Magnolia and his young daughter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete There's little point in doing a Google book search and then claiming that any results represent significant coverage. Mention of a fictional character in plot summaries of an influential or popular book is not in itself SIGCOV. We don't have an article dedicated to Magnolia, who IS the central character in the book. Ravenal is not the central character or even "the leading male character" as the article claims. He PLAYS the male lead on the showboat, but is not the lead. He comes, he goes. He's not a good person. But he is not discussed at any great length in these books beyond plot summary, he is not more notable than the central character of the book and its adaptations and there is not, actually, SIGCOV about him at all. There's no point doing a merge, the information's already in the Showboat article. Likewise a redirect - the character is more than adequately covered in the showboat article. Notable. Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Having spent over a week reading these books recently while rewriting the musical article, I can categorically say your assessment is inaccurate. There is indeed critical analysis of the character in these sources beyond plot summaries, and in particular discussion in how the character was fundamentally changed between Ferber's novel and the musical, and also altered further in successive film and radio adaptations. The coverage is substantial and not at all brief. It's obvious you haven't read the material. One of the weaknesses of the current character article is it does overstate the prominence of his role in the novel; although in the musical it is a more central role because the story was changed into a romance. The character article needs a lot of work, but it is a notable topic. FYI there is also coverage of Ravenal in books on Ferber, and cross comparisons between the men in her other novels in that literature. 4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per sources provided by Ssilvers, which show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nucky Thompson

Nucky Thompson (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)

Unfortunately, as much as i love Boardwalk Empire, Nucky doesn't passes WP:GNG, all the sources are passing mentions of the show and some don't even talk about him. My WP:BEFORE didn't help either. I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons.:

Jimmy Darmody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Margaret Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nelson Van Alden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eli Thompson (Boardwalk Empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mickey Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard Harrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gyp Rosetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valentin Narcisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close. I am finding WP:SIGCOV on several of these characters. It is going to be a headache to talk about them as a group. No prejudice in the nominator bringing them forward individually, but I strongly oppose a bundled nomination.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Close - A cursory search is showing a pretty large difference in potential notability for the different characters in this bundle, making it impossible to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. As stated by 4meter4 already, there should be no prejudice against subsequently nominating some of them individually, but the discussion for all of them as a bundled nomination is not going to work. Rorshacma (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Close per Rorshacma. Even if it achieves the same outcome, this process is all wrong for this many different articles. I see enough early evidence that each article is a little different. By going one-at-a-time, we have a better chance of getting it right. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Titus Andromedon

Titus Andromedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think this character passes WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There's lots of queer studies lit on this character. See the following books and journal articles with character analysis: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per 4meter4 - The article needs to have the sources integrated into it (and probably have the pot summary cut down), but as demonstrated above, there is more than enough discussion of the character in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per 4meter4's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. 4meter4 turned up some fantastic finds, and even a glance at the sources shows some good promise. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

List of youngest killers

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

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:No original research. While undoubtedly there are sources about child murderers as a group, the is not a List of child murderers but a "List of youngest killers". There is a subtle but important difference here. The term "youngest" is an evaluative quality and claim which doesn't match the cited literature. It's also an unstable claim that relies heavily on original research and synthesis. Maintaining this list cannot be done without engaging in original research and it should be deleted for this reason. Additionally, there are WP:MINORS and WP:BLPLIST issues with this list. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, not because I love it, but because I think that just about everything the nom said is wrong.
  • There's no difference between "child killers" and "youngest killers", except that the former introduces the question of whether the child is the perpetrator or the victim. There is a difference between "killers" and "murderers", and it's one that (a) argues in favor of "killer", as murder implies a level of comprehension that may not be warranted ([30], pg. 80), and (b) should be addressed in the WP:List selection criteria, which desperately need to be discussed, agreed upon, and pinned to the top of the talk page. But even if you thought the other title was infinitely better, that argues for a Wikipedia:Requested move, not for total deletion. We often say that deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and it's not WP:MOVE, either.
  • The subject does not rely on OR. Calculating an age and putting a list in numerical or chronological order is the kind of simple WP:CALCulation that is clearly permitted by the NOR policy. More importantly, it's not OR because reliable sources write about exactly this topic. See, e.g., this list-style news story titled "America's Youngest Killers". OR means that reliable sources don't say that. When we've got reliable sources actually (a) making a list of (b) the youngest killers, then it's impossible for us to claim that "List of youngest killers" is something made up by a Wikipedia editor and never published in a reliable source. There has been research on how young killers differ from older ones; for example, this New York Times article, "How Youngest Killers Differ: Peer Support", says that younger rampage killers behave differently from adults (e.g., have other kids actively encouraging them to kill someone). In other words, it's an evaluative quality that matches the literature that should have been seen in a well-conducted WP:BEFORE search.
  • WP:MINORS is an essay whose advice is IMO already being complied with, and which we are free to ignore anyway. WP:BLPLIST says that the contentious claims "must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources", which no good editor is going to object to, but which is another problem that's solved with the [Edit] button instead of the 'Delete' one. More to the point, did you look at the article content and think about what "BLP" stands for? First entry: No name, and either dead or about 135 years old. Second entry: No name, and either dead or 121 years old. Third entry: Named, but either dead or 131 years old. Fourth entry: No name, and either dead or 104 years old. Claiming that BLP prohibits this makes a mockery of the idea of a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Glancing down through the list, up to the age of about 10, I see only a few that (a) actually include a name, (b) aren't obviously dead, and (c) don't link to a separate article with more detail. (I'm assuming that nobody's trying to say that we can have a whole article on Mary Bell, which not only describes her as "Britain's youngest female killer" but also details her being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused from birth, as well as multiple other assaults she committed, but that it's somehow worse to have her name in a list with two bland sentences naming the young boys she killed and what her initial criminal sentence was. We do need to copy the refs out of that article and into the list, though.)
• Finally, where I land with this is that the page needs a proper set of list-selection criteria. That's not usually something developed in the AFD process, but I particularly recommend that an upper age limit be set, and that it be set quite low. Thousands of WP:MINORS kill people each year. I'd suggest considering a cutoff around age 10, but editors might want to look into things like how crime statistics are reported (e.g., "under age 12"). I suspect that most of the concerns about BLPs are actually about older teenagers, and I confess that I do not see much point in having a list of "youngest" that includes hundreds of people, and one-sixth were age 17 (which is a legal adult in some countries). Similarly, it will be important to decide whether the list should include homicide or only the subset that is murder. But the first step is to keep this; the details can be settled on the talk page later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I find the argument above convincing. I do agree that this page should be watched harder when it comes to recent cases to avoid BLP issues, and there should be some bar set. Otherwise, this very clearly does pass NLIST, and doesn't seem too hard to maintain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now but choosing a valid criteria for inclusion will probably change the scope and title of the list dramatically. There must be thousands of 3 year olds who manage homicide throughout history, so "youngest" is out because 1. age doesn't distinguish and 2. there's no way the list won't have massive gaps. But all this to say that the list should be kept only to make it easier to turn it into a valid article one day. Wizmut (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wizmut A new title would be an acceptable WP:ATD. Propose one.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

'List of killers aged X or younger' - where is X a number based on what reliable sources find notable. I would guess 13 or 15, but I don't favor pruning before the article has been worked on. Wizmut (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"must be thousands of 3 year olds who manage homicide throughout history" if we're talking about intentional killings, as the scope of this list is currently defined, I would really doubt that. Accidents are not the same and were always excluded from the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - What are we doing here? Beyond what fits neat and tidy into Wikipedia policy, some of these so-called killers are still alive. You think people can't figure out who the "Unnamed son of Pauline Randol" is, just because we didn't give out the name? To make such a mistake as murder is terrible either direction - but those who did that while so young should not have some widely-read info as Wikipedia have it all out there for the world to read about. If some of them managed to get their lives back together over the years, Wikipedia has uncovered what they had lived past. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Fibras Industriales S.A.

Fibras Industriales S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense (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 sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Durham, Gibson County, Indiana

Durham, Gibson County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The first in a series of rail spots in Gibson County, this is one of the clearest ones: it originally was the south end of a wye and is now the south end of a passing siding. The houses to the east of the spot didn't come along until around 1960. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - less than 160 Google Search results, some of which are due to Durham Cemetery in Gibson County. Zero results in Google News. Even in books called History of Gibson County, Durham is mentioned very rarely - this and that. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Cihan Erdal

Cihan Erdal (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:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [31], [32], [33] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ultimate Tornado

Ultimate 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)

Not sure this one-off documentary from 2006 meets notability guidelines. Happy to be proven wrong but can't find it anywhere other than in directories and mirrors. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of environmental films per WP:ATD. On a side note, this was part of a series called Ultimate Disaster. It was second of four documentaries in this series.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Iosevka

Iosevka (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 cites no secondary sources whatsoever, and a preliminary Google search confirms that there is only one news article covering this typeface, and it is in passing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The search in question, for those curious: https://news.google.com/search?q=iosevka /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how I missed this policy. Thank you; I see this as a much better option. I'll leave this open to see what other editors think, though. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

Nerdy Prudes Must Die (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 search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [34] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  @4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.

  Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."

  If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.

While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.

It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.

This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.

@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [35]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [36]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China (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 list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and China. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• This list cannot stay the way it is. The scope given by its title is too broad and doesn't match the far more limited scope of its content. If it did, it would basically duplicate List of generals of China. Either we should move to List of current Chinese military leaders or something similar, or we should merge to List of generals of China. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The similar lists at Category:Lists of active duty military personnel all have a more limited scope than this one. If this list is kept in some form, it should probably be split by rank and/or branch. Toadspike [Talk] 10:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Matt Lalli

Matt Lalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former lacrosse player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, New Jersey, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I know nothing about this sport but here are some more sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. I'll let others decide whether these count towards notability or not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hello and thank you for your response. The first two are passing mentions and thus not significant coverage, while the next three are not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The coverage in the article combined with the more than 100 sources covering him via Newspapers.com demonstrate that the notability standard is met as a professional athlete playing at the top level of his sport. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please share any SIGCOV you might be able to find. JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Melee

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Melee
• Articles for deletion/Melee (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Melee (game)
• Articles for deletion/Melee (game terminology)
• Articles for deletion/Melee weapon

Melee (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 is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this isn't a dictionary definition article. Instead, it's a stub article on a tactical warfare concept. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  If it is, we have an article on that concept already, close-quarters battle. If you are suggesting that a melee is different than close-quarters battle, you will need to explain how, because the article even admits they are the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it is. Simply search "melee combat" and an additional modifier to weed out the computer game books. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am, unfortunately, drawing a blank on outside the tabletop and video game realm. Rather than saying "wow it's so obvious", it would assist if you explained fully how melee combat is not CQB, or at least is different enough for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've never heard about close quarters combat until right now, but I could have told you that melee combat was close range medieval combat. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have found several sources on the form of medieval tournament, but we've got Tournament (medieval)#Melee for that. Furthermore, Melee (tournament) is the former page for that. This page still seems superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this was previously AfD'd back in 2015 for similar rationales to the nominator. I'd recommend giving it a read to avoid any restated arguments, especially since I'm seeing a few here from both sides already. I'm personally leaning to a deletion, and then having the DAB page made primary, but I'd like to see what extent of coverage the !Keep votes (@4meter4 and @SportingFlyer) are able to turn up before I make a final assessment. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)