Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 27	June 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

CJ Cortalano[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage of his high school wrestling days. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pro footballer who played at the 2017 RLWC. Fleets (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. Biographies of living persons require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one appearance for a minor RL country, minimal sourcing, nothing on his club carer.Mn1548 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated here given the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([1]), Hindustan Times ([2]), Times of India ([3]), NPR ([4]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([5]), Youlin ([6]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([16]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao[edit]

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

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find this [17] and this [18] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down-ball[edit]

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

Searches for a reliable WP:RS fail. The term is absent in Google Scholar and Books, on the Web used to describe particular situation in handball and the Four square game, but never in this context. The description on the site of Melbourne University [19] appears to be a typo: the detailed rules (under "At School 05") do not describe any wall use (it seems that the previous short text is a result of a mix-up, the game with a wall is described elsewhere: "Wall ball"). The other source [20] clearly states that down ball is Four square on p. 40 Викидим (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD was objected to by Rockycape. See his objections on User talk:Rockycape#Proposed deletion of Down-ball. Викидим (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Викидим - I think your position would benefit by consideration of the context of schoolyard games more generally. Schoolyard games such as Down-ball are primarily passed down to new generations in the schoolyard and are generally not recorded in the literature or on the web to a large extent like main stream sports for example. To be a useful contributor to the Down-ball wikipedia page I would ask that you change your approach from being a sceptic and pushing for deletion to helping to find better references whether they be in the literature or on the web. I'll certainly be working to find better references myself. Down-ball deserves a page on wikipedia as a schoolyard game enjoyed by many school kids today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Downball ~~Four square~~. I find no evidence that down-ball as an independent concept refers to anything other than the popular recess game. The article uses the two sources to say the game is distinct from four square, but the University of Melbourne source makes no reference to four square and the "Play and Folklore" source (whose discussion of down-ball is based on the Melbourne source) specifically says down-ball is "also called Four-square." Additional sources indicate that this term is indeed just another name for four square; see Susemihl and Tsolidis. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rebut Dclemens1971 first assertion that down-ball as an independent concept refers to anything other than the popular recess game (Four square). I point you to the University of Melbourne source at the top of the page where it states "Downball is a game where the first player bounces the ball on ground, to rebound off (the) wall. The second player must hit ball the same way after only one bounce. Everyone must do the same until they miss - then they are out." Rockycape (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that there needs to be some further looking then. As a kid of the age in Australia, downball and four square are different games. Four square needs four, and involves four squares. Down ball could have multiple participants, did require a wall, and no squares. Only commonality was a ball and people, and the required impact. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Downball. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have improved the page by updating two references (added page number to pdf ref) and adding a third reference. I have deleted the sentence referring to Four square. Rockycape (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. One is enough. You have also not addressed the sources I linked above that say that down-ball is another name for four square. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the "Keep" so now there is one from me. Rockycape (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"These were not the 'sporty' boys, but instead those who played chess, table tennis, or 'four square or down ball"Tsolidis Rockycape (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that the author Tsolidis is giving four examples of games. I further content that the author is not trying to say that "chess, table tennis or 'four square' or downball" are the same game. Rockycape (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of double "or" and singular "game" hint that the interpretation of Dclemens1971 is correct. Викидим (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To progress the discussion I'd be happy to address Tsolidis reference further and the implications for this discussion. Викидим (talk) contends that Use of double "or" as in "chess, table tennis or 'four square' or downball" adds weight that the author is saying that these games are the same.

Table tennis and four square are distinctly different games. We wouldn't interchangeably use Table tennis or Four square but would use the name of the game that we wanted to discuss.

There is another dimension to this that I hope will further this discussion. "Football" may refer to several different games around the world and although this may cause confusion at times there is no debate that these games do not exist. Such a debate would be non-sensical. Rockycape (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is offering this structure: "...instead those who played:

chess,
table tennis, or
'four square' or down ball (a no-contact board game)."

The Oxford comma makes it clear that four square/down-ball are presented as a single item. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are missing a comma between tables tennis and four square ... Викидим (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Викидим points out, the construction of the sentence makes it plain and clear that Tsolidis is describing the four square and downball as two terms for the same game. @Rockycape, your only source for the claim that four square and down-ball are different is one page within the Melbourne site which (I agree with the nominator) appears to have a typo. On a separate page describing "Wall Ball," the same source says "Sometimes children will use the wall as the solid surface to bounce against, as opposed to the four square court" and "This game is like Down Ball played against a wall." The discrepancies within this source and the weight of other sources saying four square and down-ball are the same game argue for my conclusion. If you have additional reliable sources, please provide them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced with Викидим and Dclemens1971 argument that in regards to the Tsolidis reference and the contention that "Use of double "or" in "chess, table tennis or 'four square' or downball" adds weight that the author is saying that these games are the same. Rockycape (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As part of this discussion I'd like to ask for some assistance. There are two school yard games that I play with my kids after school that we all thoroughly enjoy. The kids also play both games with their friends at recess and lunchtime. One game has it's own wikipedia page and the other game down-ball I have created the wikipedia page recently.

There are critics that seem to think that the game does not exist in real life and are prepared to strongly argue for the deletion of recently created wikipedia page.

The name of the game is Down-ball but recording the name of the game is less important to my kids than having a wikipedia page of the game they love and is played across many schools in several countries.

Right now despite my kids wishes and our experience that this game is indeed real it would be easier to simply stop supporting the continued existence of the down-ball page. Can I ask for some advice on whether I should stop supporting the continued existance of the down-ball wikipedia page?

I'd also like to thank billinghurst sDrewth for the supportive comment " I think that there needs to be some further looking then. As a kid of the age in Australia, downball and four square are different games. Four square needs four, and involves four squares. Down ball could have multiple participants, did require a wall, and no squares. " Rockycape (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly some misunderstanding of my position here (and possibly the machinery of Wikipedia). I did not state anything about the "real world", in which, many decades ago, I have played many obscure sporty-ish games, some of them made-up on the fly, with equally obscure names, occasionally only known in my neighborhood. While I am here in Wikipedia, my personal experiences count for nothing, and there is a reason for that: my personal account cannot be independently verified and, without verification, there is zero chance that Wikipedia articles will be trustworthy. The details can be found in WP:V. Therefore in order to have an article about game, one needs to show WP:RS that fit WP:GNG. In particular, in order to claim that down-ball and Four Square are names different games, an author needs to show an RS that clearly states just that. So far, there are none: even the university article does not claim the distinction between the two, is contains two different descriptions that, in my opinion are simply mixed-up during the Web site editing. I do not deny the existence of some other, different, game with the name "down-ball", I simply state that there are not enough sources describing it. In the Wikipedia lingo, it is "not notable". To prove otherwise, additional sources are needed. Finding such sources is responsibility of the editor creating the article (WP:BURDEN), but in this particular case I have spent a significant amount of time trying to find them before marking the article for WP:PROD - and failed. Викидим (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately whether down-ball and Four Square are different or the same game does not further this discussion. There is another context that explains the situation.

Going back to the University of Melbourne page it appears on first inspection and as others have highlighted that the University of Melbourne author has contradicted themselves. However they have simply recorded different findings at different schools.

The context of the research is important here. The author has collected information from various schoolyards in various locations and recorded their findings. The author has then tried to make sense of the various finding and organised the information into topics.

e.g.

heading: BALL GAME

subheading: Downball

Downball is a game where the first player bounces the ball on ground, to rebound off wall. The second player must hit ball the same way after only one bounce. Everyone must do the same until they miss - then they are out.

At School 14

Players: Several

Boys and Girls

Age: 10-11

Props: Tennis Ball and Brick Wall Rockycape (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about whether Down-ball and Four square are different or the same game is a red herring in understanding the game for the page that I have created.

The game that I have created the Down-ball wikipedia page about utilises a wall and is characterised by hitting the ball down to the ground before rebounding off the wall and not hitting the wall on the full.

It may be useful for this discussion to view this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2hPDOhPFo.

I have also added an additional reference to the Down-ball article. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Down-ball#cite_note-4

Rockycape (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The thread above shows a lot of confusion on the part of the creator on WP:RS and WP:NOT. The creator links to a youtube video for a game labeled "handball." However, Wikipedia already has an article called Downball. There is no evidence that a hyphenated version of "down-ball" refers to a different game. Per WP:RPURPOSE, redirects can and should be made with terms that are slightly different in punctuation and this should be no exception. Unless reliable sources indicate otherwise (and they don't here), a separate article should not be created for an article title with an added hyphen. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quite the contrary to your comment, all the evidence on the down-ball wikipedia page is that it refers to a different game.
I don't agree with your assertion about confusion. The purpose for sharing the youtube video in this discussion was to add to the discussion here. Seeing the game played can do wonders for understanding. Clearly in the video, you can see the ball is struck down and bounces before striking the wall. Rockycape (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG - A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Multiple reliable secondary sources:

1st. University Of Melbourne

2nd. Museums Victoria

3rd. playworks.org - Organisation promoting schoolyard play and games

Rockycape (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd source ("museum") on p. 40 has

picture of Downball (no dash) - with no walls anywhere
text "The most popular ball game played against a wall in ... schools – called Wall Ball, Handball or Downball ... has a closer resemblance to the sport of Squash ... A more challenging version of Downball ... Also called Four Square".

So effectively it says that Downball is either called Wall Ball or Four square. Both are already described here. So how exactly this source contributes to WP:GNG requirements for this article? Викидим (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd source ("playworks") describes Wall Ball so it seems to be completely irrelevant. Викидим (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be focussing on the finding what you would call errors from the author that would discredit the author. You point out the picture of Downball and because you can't see a wall in the picture you pose this as a problem. Perhaps the picture was taken from the wallside? You and I don't know but I don't think it discredits the author.

The full quote is: "The most popular ball game played against a wall

in today’s schools – called Wall Ball, Handball or Downball – has no rhyme and only one action. It has a closer resemblance to the sport of Squash than to the rhythmic, chanting games of the 1950s. A more challenging version of Downball is played on a court with multiple squares, or anywhere there’s a flat, even surface with a line across it, like a concrete path. Also called Four Square, this game was recorded at 15 of the 19 schools visited during the Childhood, Tradition and Change project, and there was sometimes more than one version at the same school."

Also I have no problem with the full quote. Again it does not discredit the author. In this school yard games research finding contradictions in terminology also does not discredit the author. Rockycape (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text says that Downball (no dash) is either same as Wall Ball, or, in a different version, same as Four square. There is no problem in the text, as quite frequently same words have two different meanings. But nowhere this text says that Down-ball is some third game. Викидим (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment above you have added links to the Wall Ball wikipedia page and the Four square wikipedia page. The links and the inherent meaning that you try to add is not correct to include in this quote and is not in the original quote. The authors quote is is simply Wall Ball and Four square without the links you've added.

When the author lists the named games in the sentence "The most popular ball games played against a wall in today's schools - called Wall Ball, Handball or Downball", they are simply listing some names by which this game utilising a wall may be called by kids in the playground. I am arguing that the game that my kids play which has been called Down-ball amongst other names and clearly has multiple references to the specifics of the game (played against a wall, ball hit by hand hit down towards ground to bounce then rebound off wall).

If you want to get caught up in making sure it is the "correct" name of the game across all countries across the world then you'll never be satisfied because the same game is called by different names. Those different names are likely to be in different in languages other than english names we are discussing here.

As per my wikipedia page creation, Down-ball is a good name for this game in that: it is one of the names of the game that features prominently in the references, it also describes one of the key concepts of the game in that the ball is struck down to the ground and it also describes that this is a ball game. Rockycape (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is timely now to highlight this section from Wikipedia:Deletion_process

"Also remember that nobody is obligated to close a discussion, nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended. If you feel that there is a conflict between the views expressed, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g., an inappropriate super-majority view without an appropriate basis), it may be preferable to instead comment yourself, rather than closing, even if the "due date" for closing has been reached, and leave the close to another editor." Rockycape (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of Rockycape's arguments have been convincing. It is possible that, somewhere, some version of Wallball is called "Downball". But that doesn't mean there needs to be a separate article under that name. This is confusing and largely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh90210 doesn't elaborate so for the purpose of furthering this discussion I will assume their position is "It is confusing to create a Down-ball wikipedia page because there is not consensus on the name of the game."

My rebuttal is it is ok to have a wikipedia page where a game is known by different names. The disambiguation page handles this situation clearly and effectively

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Football_(disambiguation) Rockycape (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion (probably enough for now) but not enough "votes" or opinions on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Network Exclusive Game Series results (2006–present)[edit]

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

This is a failure of WP:SALAT as these games aren't covered as a group elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and American football. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a split of the very long List of Thursday Night Football results (2006–present). Esolo5002 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The network a football game is on outside of its production, scorebug and announcers/analysts is not a defining characteristic, and these are all standard regular season games. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bitter Dawn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Bitter Dawn (2nd nomination)

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

Article has zero references since 2007, and unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific film. Article was created on 23 September 2007; Prod on 12 October 2007; then first AfD on 28 August 2010 here along with a group of additional articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources available whatsoever, in English anyway, to establish WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. (If Persian sources are found ping me.) The 2010 AfD was a significantly flawed discussion not driven by policy-related arguments. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia[edit]

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

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Bern[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because of persistent issues that have not been addressed despite discussions on the talk page. The main concerns include: - **POV (Point of View) Issues**: The article heavily reflects the claims and views of the biographed person without sufficient neutral coverage. - **Lack of Reliable Sources**: The content relies predominantly on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. - **Notability Concerns**: The subject does not meet the general notability guideline as the article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. - **Content Focus**: The article focuses more on claims made by the person rather than providing a balanced biographical account, which is a core requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia. These issues combined lead to the conclusion that the article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form.

Looking into the bibliography at least four of them seems to be self-published, or published on "print-on-demand" publishing companys."Recito":

"Recito is an innovative publisher specializing in small print runs and making the publishing world accessible to authors. We work closely with our authors to create wonderful books, and because we are experts in small print runs, we can test the market with each book without having to predict the future or risk mistakenly rejecting a manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franke1281 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Engineering, Environment, Technology, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - The article has severe issues, but being a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences means that he meets point 3 of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent significant coverage of him as a person advancing climate change denialism and other fringe beliefs, but a notable crank is still notable, the article just needs to reflect the RS on him. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so that has to be abuntantly clear. For instance, right now it says "Klimatupplysningen, a Swedish climate debating movement". Describing Klimatupplysningen as a "climate debating movement" is a bit like describing swedish "Strålskyddsstiftelsen" as "an organization that works to show the pros and cons of good mobile phone coverage".

(And for those not knowlegable about Strålskyddstiftelsen: https://www-vof-se.translate.goog/utmarkelser/tidigare-utmarkelser/arets-forvillare-2013/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=wapp

As it is now, this article reads more like an Op:ed for Lars Berns, to put it mildly, controversial opinions, than a biographical account. Franke1281 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermor (Russian nobility)[edit]

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

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layle Delo[edit]

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

Poorly sourced South African rugby union player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

André Manuel (rugby union)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. The closest I found to WP:SIGCOV was probably this. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement[edit]

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Douglas[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. References are mostly worthless, and the highest level of rugby he played at appears to be Scottish National League Division One. Uhooep (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Rugby union, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Union Centre of Curaçao[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG, with the only reference being a listing. Speedy was declined so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. NORG is not measured by references but by sources. Nominators need to do a BEFORE, not a review of references in the article. That said, article is extremely brief and provides virtually no context. Maybe can be redirected somewhere? Otherwise delete without prejudice. gidonb (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that a BEFORE didn't come up with any sources to lend the subject meeting any notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United States[edit]

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

Article has substantial issues including general copy-editing, severe lack of sources for much of what is stated, and is a general mishmash of actual "invasions", speculative ideas about potential invasions, and (until recent edits) covering completely non-related topics such as nuclear and cyberattacks.

Believe article should be moved to draft given the significant levels of issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United States of America. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Even with the nom's rightful removal of sci-fi cryptofacist fanfiction that took the article completely off the rails, this article is in need of serious help and sourcing, maybe even an entirely new title. As is, 'invasion' is doing very heavy lifting here, as only Pearl Harbor and Imperial Army attempts to get to the mainland during WWII could really be considered as such. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YafaRay[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT since no independent, non-UGC sources about the software could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Github sites and the like, but I find this [21], not sure we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gazit[edit]

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

Businessperson that lacks notability. References on the article are either unreliable/primary or are about ThetaRay, not the subject of the article. Brandon (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find PR items about ThetaRay, nothing for this individual. Not meeting notability for individuals or business. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer's Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG from lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Operations Center[edit]

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

Redirect to National Security Agency. Watch center not inherently notable on its own per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish musicians[edit]

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

WP:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstfruits[edit]

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

Sustained, independent coverage in one article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FASCIA (database)[edit]

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

Delete or merge into National Security Agency. One of many databases used by the security agency. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and independent notability as a database separate from its use by the NSA and its inclusion in the global surveillance disclosures. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Longhornsg (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Agency Check with Local Agency Check and Credit Check[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It's a credit check that lacks WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rchid Bidak[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE doesn't bring anything except websites selling his books, so I very much don't think he meets WP:GNG. ~~(Additionally, a lot of the article is highly promotional in tone, although that's fixable and deletion is not cleanup)~~ Most of the tone issues have been fixed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Morocco. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried searching for book reviews in English and French, on .fr and .ma websites, nothing comes up. Can barely even find online sties for the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Security Office[edit]

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

Delete or merge into classified information in the United States. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is (a) a real functional part of the U.S. federal government (albeit distributed across multiple arms of government), (b) serves a crucial part in the keeping of secrets, and (c) attested to by multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the multiple reliable sources that establish notability? The ones currently in the article are not secondary sources that we would use to establish notability, nor do they include WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article. Thus Merge to Classified information in the United States while also copying the data to Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of State and National Security Council. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIV-7[edit]

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

Delete or merge into NSA encryption systems. Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Technology. Longhornsg (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spillage of classified information[edit]

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

WP:DICTIONARY and the term is not notable on its own. Delete or merge into classified information. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Longhornsg (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and highly technical definition, cited to a primary source. Subject isn't covered in Classified information (and to do so would be pointless, as this is a highly specific term), so I don't see any point in a merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read into[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Sensitive Compartmented Information. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and the sources available are not seem notable or relevant by themselves. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure term of art; someone searching for the phrase "read into" is more likely looking for information on the term meaning "to infer". This is not only a WP:NOTDICT violation, it's confusing to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord[edit]

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrosexuality[edit]

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

Failed attempt at neologism from 2008, apparently part of a commercial promotion. Appears to have originated in the Daily Mail, which is not usable as a source. RS usage that I can find is one Irish Times mention. There's a HuffPost article that turns out to be a reblog of the Daily Mail piece. There's a Times article that admits it's an advertising feature. That's it. This was an article, then it was a redirect, then it was restored as an ill-sourced article. I'm pretty sure a single usage of an advertising promotional term is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article, and it would be a dicdef in any case. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for citation and a reliable source and isn't notable enough.Yakov-kobi (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single, possibly promotional use wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. It might be better suited for a dictionary definition. Waqar💬 18:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, and all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024 United States presidential debate[edit]

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

Similar article already exists David O. Johnson (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I am not commenting on this AfD at this moment, but the reasoning provided here is not correct and should mention 2024 United States presidential debates. The argument is about whether or not this is a duplicate of the content on that page, especially the section about the CNN debate last night; or, in other words, could a separate article be sustained on the debate? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I hold that there is enough background information that should be considered. The specifics of this debate—sidestepping the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kennedy's Federal Election Commission complaint, Biden's performance and calls to withdraw that will not be entertained, critical reception such as "This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began.", and a misguided Twenty-Fifth Amendment invocation proposal—suggest a debate that is unique and would not be sufficiently covered in an article about the debates in general, including the CPD's canceled debates and the forthcoming debate on ABC News on September 10. This situation occurred twelve years ago with Obama, some may add, but the consequences of this debate are much grander. To that end, there is paranoia surrounding this topic and many an unwarranted fear that should not be conflated with legitimate fallout. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge 2020 United States presidential debates was perfectly able to cover all of that year's debates in one article, and 2024 United States presidential debates can do the same. All of this coverage can and should go in the main article, where 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) covers it quite well already. This page has far too much duplication of the main article. I must YET AGAIN ask Elijahpepe not to create articles on current events when there is an existing article that covers it perfectly well already and to propose a WP:SPLIT on the talk page to get some input first. Yes, there was a lot of next-day media coverage, as will every debate, but that even if you could write a ridiculous amount of detail about everything that was said and every response, that still does not mean there should be a separate article with such a level detail and duplication. There will be more debates this year, which will also receive a flurry of media coverage, but they just don't need standalone pages. I vehemently disagree with the idea that that this debate's specifics cannot be covered in the main article. If you do want individual pages, then the main 2024 debates page should be deleted and 2024_United_States_presidential_election#2024_presidential_debates be the parent. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Events, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates; I correctly merged and redirected this article before when elijahpepe created it the first time due to a lack of reasoning on his side why this split is necessary, as we are nowhere close to having size concerns on the main article. As it was before and is now, two reports of roughly the same length are being collaborated on and with different information, which is not great. We should adhere to guidelines on splitting and breaking or very highly reported news such that we should initially develop it in a section (and as Reywas92 said, was done for every other presidential debate article and never split) and after a few days should then discuss on the talk page to gain consensus on if a split is necessary, which I don't foresee it to be. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates. We don't need a standalone article for this debate; everything in this article can be easily be covered in the 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) section. Some1 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the June 2024 United States presidential debate is being covered in-depth at 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta). The article that's up for deletion right now is a redundant content fork that is not as comprehensive as the parent article. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 United States presidential debates. There is no precedent for splitting up general election debates into separate articles. I looked at the United States presidential debates template (apologies, I'm not sure how to add a link here without linking the actual template) and every single debate year just has one article; there are no separate articles for each debate held (aside from this one). David O. Johnson (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge There is no precedent for debates to have their own pages. No size concerns exist on the main page. Some existing content can be easily moved over to the main page. BootsED (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The comments stating there is no precedent have not addressed any substance about this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to address the substance. Whatever substance the article has can go on the main page just fine. Even if there are GNG sources, per WP:NOPAGE we can still consolidate them in a larger contextual article. You need to propose a properly-performed split when warranted, not just create a duplicative/overlapping page. Reywas92^Talk 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete this. This should never have been created. The clear message from the previous AfD should have been accepted and respected. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the suggestion to merge to 2024 United States presidential debates is reasonable, this particular debate really stands out and has a very significant coverage; I think it certainly passes WP:GNG. It is quite possible (and I hope) that Joe Biden will withdraw from the elections after such debates in favor of a younger colleague. Otherwise, he will lose these elections, and the consequences for the world will be enormous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the record, there is no indication Biden will not withdraw. This occurred twelve years ago when Biden was vice president. There is no replacement for Biden, and his withdrawal would alter the chances of Democrats winning from where they are now to zero. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no such indications at the moment. Speaking on the rest, many politicians and experts say the opposite [22],[23],[24], [25], which creates the controversy and makes this page worthy of the existence. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not this page passes the GNG does not necessarily determine if it should stay or not; this page was mostly split from the 2024 United States presidential debates article without good reason; there were and are no size concerns for the main article so there was no need for a split, even if the new article happens to be notable enough to stand alone; both articles on this topic (the section of the 2024 debates article and this article) are roughly the same length, and as most collaboration is happening now on the main article, we shouldn't have two different reports on this debate be developing. To centralize work on this and to adhere to WP:NOPAGE, we should have it all be in this one section for now and then see, if size concerns arise, if it should be its own article through a proper discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at WP:SIZERULE is not an end all for pages. For example, Criminal law in the Taney Court is 2,452 words, yet I doubt you would be able to raise an AfD against it. The concerns about converging articles are legitimate, but not a reason to delete; this was the subject of a lengthy discussion on The New York Times, where the Online platforms section was split into Online platforms of The New York Times at 2,514 words even as I said that the content there needed to be expanded more before a split. The solution seems to be to condense information about the debate in the article with the larger scope and expand this one. At 1,422 words, this article is not there yet, but as I said above, a significant amount of coverage has been ignored to create an article skeleton that works to gather information. Debates have garnered coverage before, but this is an unprecedented circumstance where there is now a consequence of a debate: discussions of Biden's withdrawal that do not appear to be in jest. I do not see how that does not warrant an article in some form. The article about the 2024 presidential debates has its scope; it is not an article about this event, which including the volume of information that is out there about this debate would create. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the sizerule is the solution every single time, but with this case it certainly is. You don't get to own the article and create a separate one all by yourself just because you think there should be one, we should have actual consensus on the talk page first and a good reason to do so (usually size concerns but not always), which we don't have. We also have never made a separate article for any other presidential debate, so you have to give a good reason why this one should break precedent and be so more special than any other debate. I'm aware of the past ownership problems and premature separate article creations in the past you've had, and I think for now it would be best for you and all of us if you just let this topic develop in the section like it has been doing. We can see later on if you get to claim creation of a separate article; please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:DELAY. I'm not saying every short article that is somewhat related to a more broad article should be merged there, of course not, but rather that splits should not be made without good reason and size concerns just "because I think there should be a separate article". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided reasoning above. The calls to withdraw themselves already make this a unique debate, but we don't have an article on Obama's first debate in 2012. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So because there are some "calls to withdrawal" (which are already covered in the main article), you believe that warrants a separate article for the debate? Some1 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether Biden will withdraw or not is WP:CRYSTAL, but the calls to withdrawal themselves, and more generally the impact of the debate, makes it more than pass WP:GNG on its own. While precedent is good, it isn't necessarily an argument if there wasn't a higher level of consensus, and individual debates might not all have the same level of coverage and notability. Furthermore, even if the page isn't yet large enough for WP:SIZERULE to be an issue, it might make it harder to have an in-depth coverage of all debates at once. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to 2020 United States presidential debates per above arguments/comments, particularly those of Reywas92, Flemmish Nietzsche, and David O. Johnson. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Eleven (company)[edit]

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

I failed to find WP:SIGCOV besides simple announcements, sponsored articles, and primary source interviews. This indicates a failure of WP:ORGTRIV, which excludes "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage". Notability is also not inherited from the games themselves. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanajan Joanna[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Kaari Utrio, but as this has no sourced information, I am not sure it should be merged. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oti-Boateng[edit]

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

Non-notable religious preacher. One reference broken, other to self. Orphan. Can't see why it would pass notability test. Seaweed (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per several source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 CAFA U-14 Championship[edit]

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

An article that lacks sufficient substantiated coverage. Not enough secondary sources. Not enough notability. Wikipedia is not a site for listing statistics. EpicAdventurer (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tajikistan. EpicAdventurer (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To Central Asian Football Association#Events timeline as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included additional reliable sources to substantiate the article. The tournament holds significant notability, similar to other CAFA tournaments that have their own pages. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i added additional reliable sources since EpicAdventurer delete nomination ? Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. I don't think an under-14s tournament merits a redirect. Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenUP[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. At best some content could be merged into Eclipse process framework, but there doesn't seem to be much verifiable content anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)[edit]

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Knight[edit]

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

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng[edit]

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [26] [27] [28] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Serbian Students Abroad[edit]

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

All right, I'm calling it here, this article seems to fail WP:NORG. It has little more than 2 articles (thus failing WP:GNG) covering the society and even these seem hardly more than rehashes of routine meetings and press releases. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Makelim[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. There are a couple of interviews available (1, 2), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. JTtheOG (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Given his career their should be more sources available. Current level of sourcing is borderline for notatability in my opinion, but more closer to delete than keep. Mn1548 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 Massachusetts stabbings[edit]

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

I think the creation of this page may have jumped the gun a bit. There are possible issues with WP:SUSPECT and outside of the area it occurred, coverage seems limited (in a brief search just now all of the coverage I've found was already a month old, back to the week the event took place, and nothing since).

I would also be in favor of this going back to the drafts until further information is released. Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Crime, Events, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tragic, but doesn't seem to meet NEVENT, as there doesn't seem to be continued coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bastien[edit]

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [29] and reviews of a book he co-authored [30] and [31] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT ref does not seem to be a review from what I can see. The second is a vanity publisher & therefore effectivlt self-published.TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having written a book isn't enough to meet the relevant standard. Indeed, the usual rule-of-thumb is that an author has to have received multiple reviews for each of multiple books in order to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Mathias[edit]

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

The article lacks sources and fails WP:GNG for WP:BLPS. Deleting the article is a good option since I couldn't find any sources myself after extensive research. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a living person so BLP doesn't apply but fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient to determine the subject is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your link you sent here has no sources inside of it so it's difficult to establish whether it's a good source.Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sepiol[edit]

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World Championship win + bracelet win should merit inclusion. Now satisfactory backed up. PsychoticIncall (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PsychoticIncall: As I've asked in other AFDs, please read and understand WP:SIRS and then list WP:THREE references you feel are SIRS. WP:BURDEN is on you to prove notability, not just assert it through non-policy means (which is what you are attempting). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again - the sources are all there backing up the main statement probably even more obvious than ever before (Las Vegas Review Journal isn't just providing routine match reports). PsychoticIncall (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Illinois)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly obvious WP:REFBOMB with largely worthless non-WP:GNG compliant sources like [32] and [33]. Looking at the new sources since the last AFD not addressed by the nom [34] there is no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I suppose every so often the UPEs will try again when they have new paid placements or references with passing mentions that can be added to game G4 but it is what it is. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leap Motion (the company he was formerly CEO of) does have an article; his current company (Torch Sensors) does as well (much more dubiously). There is a non-trivial amount of coverage from c.2013. The article needs cleanup, but I am undecided between keep, redirect, and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh90210 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked all of the refs here (very bombed) and only one has more than a mention of him and that is an interview. Everything else name-checks him in an article about a product. Many of the refs that I checked do not verify the statements in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Torch (company) where he is mentioned. Or his earlier company, Leap Motion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but since his name appears at both we have a classic WP:XY and I would rather not kick this one to RFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:780A:A70F:B434:93EA (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leap Motion: The sourcing presently in the article is all about Leap Motion, I'd redirect there. The Time magazine interview doesn't help notability, but does talk about Leap. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist Group Information Services[edit]

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

The article does not contain independent references. I do not think the subject is notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough to meet WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage. The only available online sources at this time are self-published. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Brand[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced biography. Provided references are mere directory entries mentioning him and his songs with no biographical information. I found nothing better online to satisfy notability, though it’s entirely possible there may be better sources in print. --Finngall ^talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, Theatre, and England. --Finngall ^talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these songs is notable, and his output, for a lyricist, was not impressive. Compare Adrian Ross. I've deleted the material from the bio that attempted to assert notability by saying that he wrote for a theatre company that W. S. Gilbert had also written for. The bio was written by User:FairlyPuzzled, the only article edited by that user, who appears to be a descendant of Brand's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zsófia von Habsburg[edit]

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

Zsófia von Habsburg is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteTextbook example of complete lack of real notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be good if someone mentioned why the article's ten sources aren't sufficient to establish notability. I can see that at least one of them is a blog and this likely unsuitable, but just stating "Not notable" isn't helpful. Cortador (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not helpful for you to simply state "they are notable". There's more to notability than to be mentioned in a news article you know. I believe they don't pass WP:GNG, it should be easy for you to demonstrate they do if they do.
- First source is femcafe.hu
  https://www.femcafe.hu/cikkek/sztarok/iv-karoly-utolso-magyar-kiraly-dedunokaja-habsburg-zsofia-hercegno-22-eves-fotok
  It's not significant coverage, practically a genealogical entry rather than an article.
- https://index.hu/fomo/2022/08/10/habsburg-zsofia-ildiko-interju-soskut//
  Mostly a puff piece and nothing really to establish notability independent of their grandfather,
- Sources for her as an equestrian
  https://www.fei.org/athlete/10087039/HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN-Zsofia
  https://livejumping.com/ap/event/275/rider/13641
  Her performance in equestrian is not of any huge encyclopedic significance.
- https://nlc.hu/szabadido/20220717/habsburg-zsofia-es-ildiko/
  An interview with them mostly as Otto's grandchildren than as noteworthy people independent of their family ties.
  Oh they even say in the article "We are a completely average family".
- https://monarchy.blog.hu/2022/11/28/bal_magyar_hercegnovel
  Monarchy blog post about some fancy dress ball. Attendance at a ball is hardly grounds for notability.
- https://www.journaldesfemmes.fr/people/actus/2868135-bal-des-debutantes-2022-photos-soiree/2868153-l-archiduchesse-sophia-de-habsbourg-lorraine-et-le-prince-leopold-de-baden
  A photo from the ball not significant coverage.
- https://histoiresroyales.fr/archiduchesse-sophia-de-habsbourg-cavalier-prince-leopold-de-bade-bal-des-debutantes-2022/
  Another monarchy fansite post about attendance at a ball.
- https://index.hu/fomo/2022/12/07/parizs-debutansbal-habsburg-zsofia-hercegno-arisztokracia/
  A third article about the ball.
D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will be pleased to hear that I didn't declare this person notable. That's just something you made up. Cortador (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. No WP:SIGCOV to prove the subject’s own notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the two related nominations. None of the sources demonstrate notability; this is a rich (but unremarkable) 20-year-old whose hobbies include horse-riding and attending parties. There is nothing else here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni[edit]

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

Procedural nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BoraVoro:, who has been fighting the relentless efforts from COI/SPAs to prematurely undraftify this page. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ildikó von Habsburg[edit]

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

Ildikó von Habsburg is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just like for this person's sister, it's not helpful just state that this article relies on inherited notability if it is sourced. Are Vanity Fair, Index, and NLC all insufficient to establish notability? Cortador (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this person? Tell me who this 22 year old is without mentioning her grandfather or family history. I could break down the sources but I did that on the other AfD, I simply don't believe they pass WP:GNG. If you believe they do please say why.

There is a tendency in the royal side of Wikipedia to create an article for every single member of every family and it is pure cruft of no encyclopedic significance. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is sourced, the onus is on you to show that the subject still isn't notable, not the other way around. "The sources are insufficient" isn't even the argument you used for the nomination. Cortador (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument in the nomination explains why the sources are insufficient. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Konstantin Habsburg[edit]

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

Károly Konstantin Habsburg is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability and they are not notable as an equestrian. D1551D3N7 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Hannawald[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG and the significant coverage to satisfy the notability requirement for this article. One link is dead, and none can be found online when I look. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added things. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A simple brief look at the German Wikipedia might have shown that, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't add other wikipedia articles information into another wikipedia article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You. Can. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that the other article was in another language, thought it was the same one.

Have a look at WP:RSUEC, although you can use non-english sources, I'd prefer if you translate it into English since this is an English version of Wikipedia and it would get a better understanding.

And..look at WP:CIRCULAR as it states that you cant use sources from different wikipedia articles to cite on different versions as well. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The broken link has been repaired, Mushy Yank has expanded the article, and the German article contains additional material and references that can be used to further expand the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV requirements; the NY Times article is about the movie, not the actor, other available online sources are self-published. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT review is about the film but mentions him. Other sources I added are not self-published. It's the Berliner Zeitung (the article is attributed to his name, but that's evidently a mistake of the online version) and Tz. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added more sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique_de_Bragança[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Henrique de Bragança

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

Henrique de Braganca is not notable. WP:NOTINHERITED - relationships do not confer notability. All the sources are simply his death notice in Portuguese and have very little to say about Henrique beyond basic details D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little is about him specifically.98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Death notices and passing mentions in directories are not sufficient to establish notability. DrKay (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilco (musician)[edit]

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

An article about a musician that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I sat down for a while trying to find good sources for the individual but to no avail. There is also a close paraphrasing of copied content from a blog here. To crown it all, the article is a run-of-mill. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes GNG. In 2019 here or here subject was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in the UMP Awards. In 2017 here again, subject was nominated in " Best Afro Pop Category of the Year" in the Nyasa Music Awards. Again, in 2018 here she was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in Nyasa Awards. I also found this published in 2018, in Nyasa Times, here too, and more here, here, here, another here, by Nthanda Times, again here by The Nation, which can be used to sustain an article (WP:NEXIST)-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may bear or consider the awards though they seem not to be a major musical award. The sources you cited doesn't meet WP:SIRS; they appear to be quotations of the singer or about a releasee of song, which normally gets handled by a PR. I will wait for more participation though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe I don't think you really did a Google search properly because you said subject has no GNG. Now you say the awards mentioned are not the major awards, can you mention any of major award found in this country? Because those are the only major awards, among others. Again, you might wanna consider checking this for sources about the country. If you find sources that are not reliable there, please post them here for the community's input. Claiming that the awards (or something) is not major without researching is a big turn off as a new page reviewer. Again, some sources provided above such as The Nation here are considered reliable as the source (site) is one of the physical newspapers that started in early 1990s, and this is its online version. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commenting on what's already out there, I don't see any awards listed in the article whatsoever. The use of tone, formatting, MOS, and writing is very poor and kind of promotional, meaning the article does not state how and why the subject is notable. "She was born on 14 February 1995 in a family of six children in Blantyre." that is really not necessary and the statement is cited to a non-reliable source. "Hilco has been featured by different artists in the country such as Saint on a track "wanga (mine)" and "Usanapite (Don't go) that features the voice of Dan Lufani." She may be featured by Jesus but still not be notable as notability is not inherent. The "See also" section is also unnecessary.
Now looking at the notability of the subject, I don't see anything claiming that she meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NSINGER and for what it's worth, the article is not convincing that they meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And looking at WP:WikiProject Malawi/Malawian sources, there is no claim that the listed sources are reliable as there is a goal to review the sources. The website may be notable but not its content, for example Sportskeeda, Sputnik and so on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Frankly, I do not blame the reviewer for seeking consensus here as there's not much in this article. dxneo (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, Tumbuka Arch, you are that guy I pleaded with to make sure their articles are cited to reliable sources before moving them to mainspace on this AfD. We can't keep discussing the same problem over and over and then you later decide to improve the article when it's on AfD. Please refrain from doing this and if there are more of your articles like this one and the aforementioned, please work on them before they get here too. dxneo (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo, what improvement? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, the article was not like that when I first saw it. Honestly, it was a mess, but it is well formatted now. And the subject pass WP:MUSICBIO. Doesn't she? dxneo (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. withdrawn as keep per WP:HEY. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miou Miou[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Unreferenced, just like the cswiki version. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly-formatted too... What's the point of creating a Wikipedia article if the creator can't find any sources containing significant coverage? By the way, I kinda like that you mentioned the state of corresponding article in the subject's original language! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actress with this name, nothing about a musical group found. Literally no sources anywhere that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Oaktree b, I couldn't find any coverage about the band and not the actress. No indication that it meets WP:NBAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lewis Abrams[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a failed judicial nominee. The sources in the article are all primary, and a search failed to find the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish notability. Recommend a redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies: Per nomination, I couldn't find any sources on the article or elsewhere that were WP:SIGCOV. Subject is non-notable by himself. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as article creator, per the nomination. Safiel (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Internet sources do not yield enough results to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar representatives at international male beauty pageants[edit]

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

This topic doesn't meet the notability standards for lists under WP:LISTN. The sources in the article are primarily social media posts. Let'srun (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, Lists, and Myanmar. Let'srun (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Haven[edit]

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

Non-notable dairy company, heavy in puffery and promotional language. All references except one (which is also not independent of the subject) are to the company's website; was also unable to find any independent sources that are about this company. There are some for a dairy company of the same name in Pennsylvania which doesn't have an article, but none for this company. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the references are the company's official website, a non reliable source. I Don't think this article is objective and neutral enough to be on Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying you're wrong, but I thought about nominating the article for G11 but decided not to because there is a controversy section and not every sentence includes promotional language. I could nom it for G11 now if you think it is necessary, and I would've if this article was 2 days old instead of 20, though I guess age is not really a criterion for G11. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Full of Promotional, G11 applies here. GrabUp - Talk 10:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:G11 applies, this is heavily promotional with no evidence of any notability guidelines being met here. Let'srun (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:G11. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per nom. Page reads as promotion and advertising. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nominator and WP:G11, it looks like the page is written as an advertisement. Normanhunter2 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV in reliable third-party online sources. The results of an internet search are mostly from self-published sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores de Honduras[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm this meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. There are ome sources available, but not in-depth enough or independent. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not worthwhile to have a whole article that consists of just two sentences, of which the first is obvious from the title. Athel cb (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: this article consists of only two lines, u believe it could be merged with Laborers' International Union of North America. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unsourced and no reliable sources found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Honduras. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel (donkey)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it fails WP:SUSTAINED and violates WP:NOTNEWS. This subject was covered by just two news cycles: briefly and only locally in 2019 when the subject ran away, and another just recently when it was speculated that a donkey spotted in the wild was him. "Human mother", "human father"? "May have been Diesel"? Choice of language and speculation is something I would expect from a video short posted on The Dodo, but not a Wikipedia article. Simply a human-interest story to color the news cycle; not lasting, not important, not notable. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and California. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been broad, international coverage of this animal, both significant and published in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. Coverage is sustained, with dozens of articles spanning several months both in 2019 ([35], [36], [37]) and 2024 ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]). That the subject happens to be of human interest has no bearing on notability; mixed-species herding with elk, especially with animals captured during roundups, is rare and of ethological interest. Issues with phrasing have been addressed, though it should be noted that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of speculation: "suspected that", "speculated that", "believed to have belonged", "appeared to have been", "suspect that", "might be". How does this level of uncertainty make for an encyclopedic article? There is nothing in the article about the rarity of "mixed-species herding with elk" (no content, no studies, no sources) which might have some interest. However if the real point was the oddity of donkeys herding with elk then the focus of the article wouldn't be "Diesel the donkey", but Diesel would be a side note in another article that did cover inter-species herding. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. This is not the appropriate venue for discussing article improvements. If you have issues with wording, please bring suggestions to the article's talk page. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting the article needs improvement, but I am pointing out that a subject matter which is brimming with speculation while slim on facts essentially isn't WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in the first place. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody lost their donkey, then it was found. The claims of importance are not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The donkey has received coverage over several years, and by multiple RS. "But it's just a donkey" doesn't change that. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the coverage spanned several years, was not sustained, but was only two news cycles: once when the donkey went missing, and once when it was spotted. Per WP:SUSTAINED, brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. This hardly passes for "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, which also cautions that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article ... perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not (NOTNEWS). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an alarmingly disingenuous mischaracterization of the sourcing and a misreading of the guidelines. News cycles don't last for months at a time. News articles were written when Diesel went missing, again when search parties were formed to find him, again when he was seen on a trail camera, again when he was spotted in 2023, and again when he was spotted in 2024. Reading the references is part of WP:BEFORE. When I said dozens of references, I was being literal. Only the best 13 or so are included in the article, but every one of these is full-length, with multiple paragraphs devoted exclusively to the subject, clearly meeting WP:SIGCOV and surpassing WP:GNG. The anti-donkey sentiment here strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like donkeys. This has nothing to do with donkey hating. I understand this is your article so you want to defend it, but please stick to content issues and assume good faith of other editors. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is kind of lame logic, but we have all kinds of temporarily viral tale from Lawnchair Larry to Rickrolling in WP. The donkey is not particularly notable by the animal "biography" standards, but as a cultural news story that went viral, it's got adequate coverage to meet the basic WP:N criteria. And it's humorous. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw and others. Grorp, please stop badgering opposers. Miniapolis 13:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare[edit]

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

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and South Korea. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: As a public KOSDAQ company, coverage exists. This would appear to scrape notability for companies, but sourcing I could locate is way too dependent on press releases such as https://www.arabnews.com/ejada-and-infinitt-forge-health-care-links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [44][45][46][47][48][49] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party[edit]

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the required to win an election to get listed on wikipedia, secondly as for the WP:GNG is concerned, this party is got some coverage from reliable independant sources. e.g:

https://www.urdupoint.com/politics/party/pakistan-falah-party-84.html

https://www.dawn.com/news/676942/another-political-party-is-born

https://pakvoter.org/political_parties/pakistan-falah-party/ Subhanyusha (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Subhanyusha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Subhanyusha, Unreliable sources except Dawn, and no sig/in-depth coverage in Dawn news story. — Saqib (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman has demonstrated sufficiently deep coverage of this party, I don't think those sources are generally unreliable. Whizkin (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Whizkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete poor sourcing, some serious WP:UPE vibes here don't help this article's case. The keeps in this case do not provide a sufficiently strong rationale for delete beyond poor quality sources.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has significant coverage on reliable sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can you provide that significant coverage that meets the GNG? It seems everyone (mostly fresh accounts) is just casting keep and saying there's significant coverage, but no one's backing up that claim in a way that meets WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party has received sufficient coverage for general notability. Winning an election is not required for notability. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece[edit]

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”; there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaharkaray[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a HOAX, at the least. Saqib (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. _Jovian ^Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. _Jovian ^Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the place may indeed exists, it does not meet WP:GNG and does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for a standalone article. The article itself does not contain comprehensive detail about the shrine, but about the goddess and the legend connected to that goddess. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Lutheran Church (Swedish denomination)[edit]

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

Protestant denomination with one congregation and just 20 members. A cursory Google search doesn't turn up anything of note. Graham (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Sweden. Graham (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet the Wikipedia Notability guidelines, not enough coverage. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Internet search does not yield results that would qualify as WP:SIGCOV; this fails WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Institute of Medical Science and Research[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have a seperate article, the institute became a constituent college of Parul University after it's formation, see this and this. Should be part of the university's article, maybe under constituent colleges section. It's also unclear whether the college's name is still the same, I have seen it mentioned somewhere as "Faculty of Medical Science and Reaserch - Parul University", I'm unable to find the college in any UGC / MCC lists so couldn't check. Anyways, It doesn't have any offline notability, too, it's just on paperwork like degrees, otherwise only "Parul University" is being used. CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Gujarat. CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges: I could not find any in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, which is needed to prove notability. It would be better to redirect. GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete or redirect, as above for notability, not in depth coverage, and somewhat promotionally. It had a copyvio which I discussed off-wiki for RevDel request. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul University. As of this time it seems not notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges: No notability for this affiliated college at this point. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parul_University#Affiliated_Colleges.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing[edit]

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

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Indonesia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This event did not receive WP:ROUTINE news coverage, but international news coverage [50] [51] [52], [53] and Time magazine analyzed the event in the context of Myanmar's Muslim-Buddhist conflict [54]. Longhornsg (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where... PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Calamba, Laguna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results (source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a legally recognized administrative unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale dozens of barangay articles have been redirected to their city/town articles, and a few were deleted through AfD's. Too many barangays (numbering around 40,000) mean too many stubbish or poorly-referenced articles to maintain, leading to frequent vandalisms or addition of unencyclopedic content like lists of schools, hospitals, facilities, businesses, landmarks, or tourist attractions. The issue was last discussed here (admittedly, there was no firm and final closure). See also Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Book search shows it's been discussed in parliament, is the site of a mango farm which has been studied a bit, and was on a map produced by a United States scout as early as 1902. But it doesn't have a page in Tagalog and further sleuthing was unhelpful. Not sure what to do here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calamba, Laguna. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV right now for a separate page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Registered Agents Inc.[edit]

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.

The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.

Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.

Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.

Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.

Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.

As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.

The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.

Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag " It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun – Prince of Bali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all notability guidelines. While the before search turned up nothing useful, the existing four sources in the article are not reliable. The first source in the article which does not appear reliable is just two short paragraphs and it is about a game developed to popularise the the series. The other three sources are from a single publisher with lengthy quotes from the producers themselves without an independent review. Piscili (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Redirect to Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali for example if sources on the page are not judged sufficient, and for example, also see https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/44417_game-for-disneys-new-show-arjun-the-prince-of-bali ; (https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tv/chhota-bheem-gets-musical/articleshow/63977507.cms (brief mention)); 3 years on Disney Channel... Opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Gold Animations#Television: per nom, no WP:SIGCOV C F A 💬 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure why editors are voting to "redirect per nom" if the nom doesn't appear to be proposing a redirect? Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe the subject is not significant enough and doesn't meet the notability guidelines. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Engineering[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Science, Engineering, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."
2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."
3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."
4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."
5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."
6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."
7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

reliable sources

Extreme Engineering

Build It Bigger

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

reliable sources

independent

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am convinced the new sources are enough for notability. 'WITHDRAW' DonaldD23 talk to me 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman[edit]

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

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the issue is notability, it seems that finding out how many scholarly works cite Expectations as a source might help. I'm attempting this at Google Scholar, but there are probably more efficient sites out there: [55] I clicked on one of the Google Scholar results, more or less at random, and I got this 2014 study that cites it: [56] And so do these [57] This took probably three minutes. It's likely there are a lot more out there. If anyone has a university JSTOR access, we could have this thing sourced up in no time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 I mean, sure, it's cited, but the issue is I can't find any sources that talk about the actual thing besides the fact that it exists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its academic nature may affect our ability to do that from this side of the paywall. It doesn't look like the sort of thing that would end up in the New York Times book review. Do you have JSTOR access? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Couldn't find anything on that, ProQuest, Gale, etc. If there is sigcov it probably isn't in English, which is the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and there's one linked article to another Wiki. The sources, whose titles appear in English, seem to be just Expectations itself. I'm comfortable with deletion without prejudice to recreation if better sourcing appears, but I'm not confident it exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented by Darkfrog24?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [58] or [59] and Mexico for good measure [60]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [61] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pinnell[edit]

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

This fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. An article about a non notable sports journalist that died in the 1970s, which the article is strangely written like the person knew them. Doesn't seem much is readily available, if there is any, about them unless someone has access to old British Newspapers. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sports. GamerPro64 04:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No available online sources at this time to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jong Chol-min[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree, this article fails WP:GNG, This person is not notable enough and doesn't have enough coverage EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:GNG, a recurring theme with this types of articles. Anwegmann (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jong Kum-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – With only database sources listed, this article is absolutely unacceptable! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2018)[edit]

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

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the same party as mentioned here 1 2 3 re-registered, or is this yet another United Party of Canada? Cortador (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador Different iteration there is a draft currently on this new version that hasn’t demonstrated notability yet either. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2009)[edit]

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

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, statistical in nature, or records of legal proceedings against the party which would not lead to this party being notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough reliable sources EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[62]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[63]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[64]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia[edit]

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

Another referral from WP:BLPN. This article is a product of original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:

https://www.ted.com/talks/gabrielle_horne_how_a_doctor_used_medical_research_tools_to_survive_workplace_bullying?language=en

If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-medical-school-mistreatment-harassment-bullying-1.6712113

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/medical-resident-mistreatment-study-dalhousie-1.7058488

And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".

As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.

MrHaligonian (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hello MrHaligonian, and welcome. You, me and everyone else are compelled by the rules of the project. Some of these scandals may be notable in and of themselves, but creating an article listing them all under a common banner is a form of synthesis called original research, which is disallowed. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and per Fram. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we have an editor willing to Split it into two My knee-jerk reaction is that this is probably notable enough to keep. Now to read with care... Okay, the main complaint is OR, right? The first two sources cited look RS at first blush, but they do not actually state the information they're cited to support. The source has to say the thing! Continuing... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, I did a source sampler on the article talk page. I propose that we Refocus the article to "Medical professional scandals at Dalhousie University": 1) The article's sources are mostly RS, but I did not see any that said "We're talking about the specific concept of medical professional scandals in Nova Scotia." The claims made in the lede that NS has a pervasive culture of harassment need to be backed up by sources that say exactly that or almost exactly that, and the sources just don't say that. 2) A big chunk of the article focuses on scandals that happened at Dalhousie University specifically and almost all of the statements made by sources do support what happened there. A few explore why in good detail. The case can be made for notability. I say we snip off that section at the bottom about the health service and repurpose these editors' hard work as a DU article. I didn't go into as much depth on the sources covering the Health Authority, but if the sources are of the same quality, then we could WP:CONTENTSPLIT the article in two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the sources and come up with a creative idea that allows my hard work to be kept. I agree with you that it's mostly Dalhousie University problems, because as far as I can tell, everything that happened at Nova Scotia Health Authority also happened at Dalhousie University as all were employed as trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) at Dalhousie, or they were doing research there. The only part that has nothing to do with Dalhousie is the part about repeated privacy breaches, as the news media only says it was healthcare professionals looking at hundreds of records that they weren't authorized to, and the lawsuit had NSHA pay out $1 million with a new lawsuit & allegations of negligence as of last month. I would be good with having the majority of the sources moved into a Dalhousie University article by someone who knows how to write this better/quote the sources better (maybe you, Darkfrog24) and I don't know what to do with the NSHA-only parts.

For the record, I originally had another section on private practice scandals that someone felt violates BLP so it was removed. That further pigeonholes this article into being mostly about Dalhousie and less about the whole of Nova Scotia. MrHaligonian (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can tell,

There's your kicker. It's not about what you can tell or what I can tell. It's about what professionally published sources can tell. The article has sources that say "medical scandals are a specific thing in Dalhousie" and "medical scandals are a specific thing in the Health Authority," but it's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to add that together as yourself-the-Wikieditor and say "therefore they're a thing in Nova Scotia." Even if you are a professional investigator of this specific issue IRL, you have to wait for a pro to publish. That's true throughout project Wiki: Chemists aren't allowed to write chemistry articles without sources even though they're experts. Historians aren't allowed to write history articles without sources even though they're experts. We all need sources, and those sources have to say the thing that the article says or strongly implies.

My first article got deleted too. I've since gone on to make many more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of source you'd need for "Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia" would be something like a newspaper article analyzing multiple scandals and talking about what it is about Nova Scotia specifically that made them happen or made them happen the way they did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thank you. It is possible such an article exists and I just haven't found it yet. I did find, in another search, 4 more articles about serious scandals in Nova Scotia Health Authority. So this would provide more material for an NSHA article if we were to proceed with splitting a Dalhousie University medical scandals article off from an NSHA article:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nova-scotia-medical-mistakes-registry-085610510.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/10318288/pictou-landing-first-nation-accuse-radiologists-secret-tests/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ambulance-service-emc-ehs-health-emergency-1.7131333

https://globalnews.ca/news/9396989/allison-holthoff-er-death-cumberland-regional-health-centre-ns/

I think the entirety of my article up to, and NOT including, my last paragraph about privacy breaches, can be transitioned to a DU-specific article, since everyone in the paragraphs above the NSHA privacy breaches were training or doing research at DU and DU is therefore significantly involved even if NSHA ended up being the one getting sued. For example, the Dr. Horne case involved her doing research at DU and older colleagues demanded to receive undue credit on her research, which is very much a DU culture problem, but NSHA suspended her privileges so it was NSHA that got sued. The fact of toxic culture issues at DU remain in that case though, along with all the other cases where DU was involved. I am actually now starting to realize that the toxic culture issues are primarily a DU problem, and NSHA problems are of a different nature entirely, more along the lines of disregard for privacy and medical mistakes, rather than being a "toxic workplace" issue. My goal with this article was to primarily comment on toxic workplace issues because that's what we constantly hear about from medical professionals in this province.

So I'm thinking to split the articles into 2:

1. Dalhousie University Medical Scandals (or some such name to refer to the toxic workplace issues that repeatedly recur) and

2. Nova Scotia Health Authority Scandals (referring to the privacy/medical errors type of issues) MrHaligonian (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this relates to article deletion, I think we can all take this as evidence that there is a Wikieditor willing to do the legwork. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article accordingly to prep it for a potential content split. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two I don't know if I can vote on my own article, but of course I vote to keep it. If it helps, I understand the opening sentences were seen as "synthesis", so I took the feedback from Darkfrog24 that the sources have to specifically say the thing, and I reworded the opening to specifically say the thing. Also noting Dalhousie University is the largest university in the Maritimes (covering 3 provinces - NB, PEI, NS) and that would add to the notability. It's also one of the oldest universities in Canada, though I didn't add that because I am not sure if that makes any difference. MrHaligonian (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder how to make it a "list article", so that it's basically a summarized list of all the scandals, instead of "original research" and "synthesis". I don't know what the criteria are for making it a list. As it stands now, with the opening sentences revised, I feel like this is just a list of scandals at Dalhousie, and a list of scandals at the provincial health authority, and both of those fall under the realm of "Nova Scotia". If it's considered "synthesis" to combine them in 1 then I understand the content split argument, though the 2 articles separated would be basically stubs, and also there is considerable overlap between the two as it's not possible for someone to be a medical trainee at Dalhousie without also being a Nova Scotia Health Authority employee, and most NSHA employees involved in the scandals were also training or doing research at Dalhousie. But the privacy breach scandals with a $1million class action lawsuit payout and a new class action lawsuit pending seem to have no link to Dalhousie. This is why I think it's good to have them both together under 1 article, but if it is "synthesis" to identify that Dalhousie and NSHA together fall under the umbrella of Nova Scotia, then I guess splitting is the only option... MrHaligonian (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list article requires discrete events to list that have articles (are independently notable by themselves). They generally stand in the same WP:CATEGORY in some way. It substitutes for a genre-type article where no source (presently) supports one. What we have here is an article that's knitting together topics from apparently one or more discrete categories without the IRL support for tying them together. Completely unsarcastically, MrHaligonian would be a great journalist, and I bet local publishers would publish a synthesis like this. It's okay for them to do that, just not us. It takes three or more willing publishers though, so perhaps save this article's raw code locally and bring this to media attention if you care about the issue. FYI I usually ravage BLP related articles especially, either before or during AfD, but I didn't here in case you wanted to sandbox or WP:DRAFT this. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and the compliment. We did end up removing the BLP-related private practice one and I haven't brought it back in. The scandals listed in the article now are less about living people and more about the institutions. The living people are just being quoted/mentioned, very similar to the source material and not synthesizing them. If you're going to ravage this at some point, please compare with the original articles and be gentle. The point I was trying to get across was what the institutional/cultural problems are, not biographing living people. There is a lot more to say about Dr. Gabrielle Horne per information about her online, but I'm not biographing her and just included the news article information about how DU/NSHA did her dirty. MrHaligonian (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for this AFD to take its course before considering offering a scalpel or cleaver. Thank you for your efforts in addressing the BLP concerns. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally allowed to vote. You're what we call the "first major contributor" to the article. That means you get to set a few precedents for the article going forward, but other than that it's not treated as yours per se. (So you get to vote and aren't treated as inherently biased just for having made said contribution.) I like to think of it as as soon as I hit "publish changes," I've given the content to the Wiki as a present. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, and I responded to your helpful explanation about synthesis above. MrHaligonian (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is allowed, welcomed, and reasoned (which is important, thank you!). You can also change it if you want, or add a "Strong" or "Weak" if you're feeling so. Decisions here are ultimately by WP:CONSENSUS, so generally comments and votes here get considered according to what you say and not who you are. Deletion is a drastic question but we aren't drastic about it I hope. JFHJr (㊟) 04:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus. The closing options in AFD are limited to Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. This can't be closed with an order to Split this article as editing is voluntary and a closer can't order an editing task to occur. So, if this article is to be Split, you first have to vote to Keep it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect Based on the above discussion, I suggest we keep this with a plan to split into two: Dalhousie University having their own page on their medical scandals, and redirect the NSHA-specific redirect pages to Nova Scotia Health Authority by copy & pasting the small section on NSHA scandals into a new small section on scandals at the bottom of that existing Nova Scotia Health Authority article. Alternatively, if it's not felt that Dalhousie University Medical Scandals should be its own page, then the same can be done with the DU scandal material by copy & pasting that section into the bottom of the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine article as a new scandals section - which may work out better if JFHJr will continue with the threat to take a "scalpel or cleaver" to the material and thus shorten it significantly. Note that if removing BLP-related content, please try to maintain as much of the scandal-related material as possible, even if removing names of the people involved. The only hitch on this is that the Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, while technically falling under the umbrella of a "medical" scandal, is its own faculty separate from the Faculty of Medicine (it's the Faculty of Dentistry) so if all of that is being redirected to Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine then some rewording would be necessary to point out how the Faculty of Dentistry scandal is closely related but from a separate faculty that appears to not have their own Wiki page. --MrHaligonian (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up, you've made it look like you voted twice. That's not that big of a deal since both statements are signed, but this paragraph belongs in the thread with your original post, right under J's comment about not being drastic. This way, people reading the thread quickly won't mistake you for two people. (Feel free to remove this statement of mine when you move this post.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I voted again is because this was relisted because of no consensus. My original vote was skewed toward "split into two" and that is apparently not an option. Your vote was also "split into two" and I think they're saying that they want something that is either Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. I get the sense that we should both remove our original votes and put a firm, allowed vote here below the relist? I removed my original "keep" and just left the incorrect "split into two" for the arguments there, but my final vote is Keep or Redirect with the material being split. MrHaligonian (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrHaligonian, you can't "vote" more than once. Please strike the vote you no longer have or another editor might strike out one of the votes on your behalf. It's better that you choose which one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See where I went back and changed the bold text of my vote? Do that. You can make a crossout by writing "strike" in format like this: <strike>Split into two</strike> Keep. It's okay that it's located above the relist notice. People know to look for it there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [65] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Park, New Zealand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE, it is not a suburb and is it not recognised by Auckland Council nor the NZGB. NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts. Below is a more detailed comment. I am proposing a merge as an alternative to deletion.

Extended content

Huntington Park is a housing development from the 90s, it is not an official suburb, and is not a notable housing development either. Most of this article relies on original research and unreliable sourcing: Oneroof is a real estate website and not a reliable source. The 1998 map does not even show Huntington Park and is original research. The article on the The Hub shopping centre does not mention Huntington Park. The Countdown reference refers to it as being Woolsworth Botany Downs, again no mention of Huntington Park. Guy's Homestead is notable but only one reference involving it even mentions Huntington Park. Most mention it as being within either Botany or East Tamaki.

Traumnovelle (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Park, New Zealand - you continuously have articles such as [66] [67] [68] [69] which describe things as being within Huntington Park, and we would be deleting a well-developed article on some sort of technicality because it doesn't exist within a GIS system. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence mentions aren't able to establish notability. Please make an argument based on an actual notability guideline and not 'I like it'. The article can be redirected to an actual suburb as an alternative to deletion to maintain the content that exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear it's one of the suburbs of Auckland per NPLACE which is one of our lowest notability standards, listed on government websites such as [70]. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that says 'suburb', you're using original research to deduce it's a suburb. And official recognition is not 'mentioned on a government website', otherwise roads would also be fair game. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a suburb by the media and by the government. Calling that original research is rather disingenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the government refer to it as a suburb? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auckland. The sources currently cited on the article itself do not show WP:SIGCOV about the place, instead they are isolated events that occurred there such as the fire at the Guy’s homestead or superficial mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Official census district, which alone would be enough for a keep. In any case, populated placed that can be shown to exist are almost never deletion candidates. To quote WP:POPULATED, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the same notability guideline: 'Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable'

The relevant paragraph given this is a housing development and not an actual suburb. (It's not even a fifth of a square mile...)

'Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.'

And also: 'Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability.' Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a census tract, though - places like USA and India have quite small and random census tracts, this appears to be more of a census-designated place. Also please mind WP:BLUDGEON. SportingFlyer T·C 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It only exists for the purpose of the census and is not used outside of the census. That sounds like a census tract to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely used outside the census, which has already been demonstrated in this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That census tract is not used outside of the census. You're conflating the area/housing development with the census tract. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely lost me. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an area, I don't dispute it is a real verifiable area. It is a housing development subdivided since 1994 or earlier. Census tracts are not legal areas and only exist for the purpose of the census. They are not used outside of the census in any measure. Census boundaries do not necessarily correspond with legal boundaries or social boundaries (what people understand as an area) as shown by how they constantly change throughout the different censuses.

For example the census tract 'Auckland University' does not correspond with the actual boundaries of the university and includes the Central City Library and parts of lower Rutland St. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted before, there's a major difference between a census tract in the American or Indian definition - both of those are continuously deleted as they are not used outside the census - and a place which is consistently called a suburb by the government, the local papers, the post office, which is also a defined area in the census, as has been clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the government sources actually state it's a suburb. Hobsonville Point has more government/media mentions but it is ultimately a housing development not a suburb. Simeon Brown's statement even suggests it isn't one based on his wording choices. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly listed as a suburb in that link and was clearly brought up in parliament below. Housing developments can become suburbs. I don't think you're correct in the slightest and we're not going to agree on this, so taking this off my watchlist. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Like most cities in New Zealand, Auckland doesn't have official suburbs. Traumnovelle has mentioned at Talk:Manukau#Merge proposal that suburbs not named on Auckland Council Geomaps are not official suburbs, but I am not aware of any statement from the council saying this, and if such a statement does exist, we can change the article to say "locality". Households in the area have addresses in "Huntington Park". Google maps and Apple maps include "Huntington Park", and so does my GPS.
In the "Extended content" section above, Traumnovelle calls Huntington Park a "housing development", but I think that term in New Zealand applies to mass builds of dwellings which have more than one household in each multi-story building, or where dwellings share walls with at least one other. This applies to the area around Haven Park, but that's only about a quarter of the area of Huntington Park. Traumnovelle also says the 1998 map does not show Huntington Park - that's because it's establishing that the suburb did not exist at that date. Before nominating this article for deletion, Traumnovelle made it a redirect to Botany, New Zealand without any prior merge proposal. The AfD was a response to my suggestion that they request a merge instead. A merge may make sense, although merging to Botany wouldn't be my choice, but to delete a populated area does not make sense, nor does redirecting to the city of almost 1.5 million people.-Gadfium (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pursuing a decision to merge/redirect not a deletion, I forgot to mention that in the AfD heading, apologies.

Post codes are not indicative of boundaries in New Zealand, my postal address is not the same as the locality I live in. On Auckland Council's geomaps they state about post codes: 'Note that New Zealand Post does not define suburb names or boundaries. In rural delivery areas New Zealand Post defines the Mailtown that is required for Rural (RD) addresses. The Mailtown does not necessarily reflect the service town closest to the mailing address.'

>but I think that term in New Zealand applies to mass builds of dwellings which have more than one household in each multi-story building

A housing development is just a housing development, it's where land is sold off and subdivided into housing. The type of housing is irrelevant.

>Traumnovelle also says the 1998 map does not show Huntington Park - that's because it's establishing that the suburb did not exist at that date.

So when did it exist as a suburb? The land was subdivided for housing since at least 1994 based on a comment I found in a Howick & Botany Times article. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, local businesses regard it as a suburb, as do the national news media, and as do Members of Parliament in debate in the house. That counts for something, I'd say. Oh, and by the way, if you're going by the !rule that "suburbs not named on Auckland Council Geomaps are not official suburbs", what happens when said suburbs are used in the Auckland Council's map index (check, for instance, Cottesmore Place, Lushington Place, Halstead Place, Morestead Avenue...)? Grutness...wha? 11:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this local business calls it Botany: https://piccolopark.co.nz/botany/#

1news article states: 'The development is currently under construction in Huntington Park, Botany' Botany is already a suburb, the fact they put Botany after it implies Huntington Park is something below a suburb.

Here's a bunch of articles discussing something that is within the area but do not use 'Huntington Park' to describe the area: [71] [72] [73]

Simeon Brown's comment doesn't call it a suburb, in fact the grammar even suggests he is referring to it as a housing development (typically we say things are located within a suburb, whilst things may occur 'at' other areas, e.g. I met him at Mount Eden versus I met her in Mount Eden)

None of those maps appear to even mention Huntington Park, they say Howick, East Tamaki, or Botany: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/districtplanmanukau/maps/map37.pdf

If it is forgotten about this routinely and nothing beyond mere statistics appear to exist it probably is not very notable is it? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California School of Podiatric Medicine[edit]

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

This fails WP: N. I put a PROD that expired, but apparently this was nominated in 2008. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Schools, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Merritt University EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samuel Merritt University. It’s just a department of that university; no WP:SIGCOV of the department at this time to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - normally, I'd lean towards a redirect (not a merge as nothing has a secondary source) to the parent institution, but it's pretty questionable that article would meet NCORP either. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]