User:Abishe/AFD

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 28	November 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bobby Greenwood (golfer)

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

A lot going on here. The primary reason is that it fails WP:V - no citations. And I think it clearly violates Third Party rules; almost certainly someone close to the subject created this. It reads like a CV. Lastly, this may violate WP: N; there is no indication that he was ever a PGA Tour member.

Chief disambiguator (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Regards, Chief disambiguator (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Chief disambigutor

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Greewood (golfer)

Civil Society Coordination 2.0

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

I can't seem to find really any sources besides a passing mention in some paper 1 and the article doesn't really give much context on what the subject is. I believe it is some sort of organization, and have tagged this discussion as such, but am not completely sure. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of longest-running video game franchises

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

Per this discussion, WP:OR on deciding what makes a video game franchise long-running. "To qualify for this list, a video game franchise must have seen regular releases, with no more than 10 year-long gaps in-between, for at least 25 years, from a franchise's first release to its most recent" - what? Is this a requirement for entry to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame of video games? Unsourced, unclear and unneeded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per the WP:VG discussion. This page is unneeded, and pretty clearly just a breeding ground for original research. Definitely not something that belongs on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete There can be no objective criteria for what counts as "longest-running" because of the many ways of interpreting that. As such, the page is not a viable one given the totally subjective way it interprets this as "from the oldest to the latest game released". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - per nomination and the discussion linked in it that I had started at WT:VG. It's unsourced, with no hope of ever properly being sourced with all the WP:OR and faulty reasoning it was built upon. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - It's a bad sign when, instead of summarizing the topic, a list starts with a whole paragraph explaining the arbitrary inclusion criteria. ApLundell (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Clearly not a list that has been in covered to some extent in reliable sources, and the inclusion requirements strongly reek of OR. No real hope of saving the content. --Masem (t) 21:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Shalom Nagar

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

I know this is recent, but this fails WP:BIO1E and could easily be merged (or redirected) into Adolf Eichmann#Appeals and execution. Info here is mainly about the execution itself. E_F⁵ 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Seems fine with the sourcing used. coverage going back to 2011 at least in RS. If this was stub article, it might be a different decision, but we have quite a bit of info here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Mirza blasphemy case

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, lacking WP:SIGCOV and enough WP:PROOF for the case. Nothing more than a controversy exaggerated in WP:WIKIVOICE. Most part of it is covered at the BLP's main article. MSLQr (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Checking through the page it shows that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and it lacking WP:SIGCOV and most of the content violated copyright and it can be added under the controversial section of Muhammad Ali Mirza
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mahsuri National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of schools in Kedah. It is in that list under the name SMK Mahsuri (currently a redirect to Mahsuri National Secondary School) which is the school's acronym name.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Ong Kai Jin, did you check any of the local news sources with the non-English name, such as this one? Although I don't read the local language myself, I am finding enough sources about this school that I am reluctant to redirect it. Since this is the equivalent of a large public high school in the American educational system, it is perhaps not surprising that these news sources exist, and I would expect to find official reports and other reliable sources as well. When the school is located in a non-English-speaking country, searching for its translated name is really not an adequate WP:BEFORE search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The news were about principal thanking a company for gifting glasses to students among interviews of others,^[1] some of the individual achievements,^[2]^[3]^[4] a teacher's own fund to help the needed,^[5] two students got a helicopter ride under a government syndicate's initiative,^[6] a road accident which mentioned about a mother was sending child to school,^[7] an individual interview,^[8] an announcement by a company to execute a project with schools^[9] and an award for being a teacher figure in the district.^[10]

Those featuring individual achievements and interviews should be disregarded as the school is not inherent of the notability per WP:INHERITORG, and the remaining did not provide in-depth coverage or facts for the school itself. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Any source that contains any in-depth coverage about the school itself should be counted. Some editors prefer the Wikipedia:One hundred words standard for "in depth". The point is, those 100 words have to be about the school.

If you have a source that says "Aisha is a very smart student. She won the city contest for most artistic fruit display. She lives at home with her parents, grandmother, and older brother. Her grandmother taught her how to cut fruit decoratively. She attends the Mahsuri National Secondary School", then that suggests (weak) notability for Aisha, but not her school.

However, if you have a source that says all of that, plus it has several sentences about the school, then the part of the source about the school (but not the part about the student) counts towards notability for the school. It is not about being "inherent of the notability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

References

^ Asri, Suliati (2021-09-27). "Tingkat fokus pelajar". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2021-07-01). "Nota ringkas bantu Mohamad Hafiz cemerlang STPM". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-05). "'Mahsuri' dapat 10A". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Pulut kuning untuk pelajar cemerlang [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-20. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-22). "Projek mulia Geng Cikgu, rakan-rakan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2020-02-02). "Bertuahnya kamu dik [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2019-03-16). "Cuma lima saat..." Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-11-07). "Tahan sakit jawab soalan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-08-20). "i-Muamalat Mobile beri kemudahan 500,000 pelanggan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
^ Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Ikhlas jadi pendidik". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

Keep - Per WhatamIdoing, and adding that as well as SMK Mahsuri (which turns up plenty including some research and book mentions) there are also articles showing for "Mahsuri Secondary" "Langkawi" [1] and presumably other variations. This is one of 22 nominations that were made on the same day, each minutes apart. I do not believe there was time for an adequate WP:BEFORE and my presumption based on sources that show up, and on the nature, size and age of this school, is that it is notable. I have not researched each source more deeply as the size of the task with 22 schools is prohibitive. The SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC close discouraged mass nomination of schools simply because the guideline had changed, and there is no better deletion rationale here as to why these should be deleted. Barring a source analysis that discounts all the sources that prima facie show notability, I think this should be kept Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Just false returns. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Morrisson (singer)

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

Musician and radio DJ. The claims of notability are a #15 Hot Dance Airplay song in 2006, and one of his songs playing at a club scene in an episode of a NBC TV show. Neither of these meet WP:NMUSIC. All content edits are by two accounts that never edited anything else on Wikipedia (except a deleted draft article on his band). One reference is to the charts for the #15 hit, the other is vague and to a magazine that mentions a lot of musicians in passing. Here2rewrite (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Park, Virginia

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

GNIS stub for insignificant subdivision in Fairfax County, VA. WP:BEFORE yields unrelated results and links to sites like Zillow and Nextdoor. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOLAND or at least find a suitable WP:ATD. It's a populated place just looking at images in google maps. There are houses and businesses.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: There are no businesses here aside from any random home businesses. This is a small residential subdivision within another populated place that is the CDP of Braddock, Virginia. If that doesn't indicate that lack of notability of this place, per WP:GEOLAND, residential subdivisions could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources, but there are no independent reliable sources covering this topic that I could find, which would prove the notability of this development. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Housing development/subdivision, not a notable community. I don't see any businesses, it's just a small suburban neighborhood. Merely being a populated place with houses does not entitle it to an article or even mention elsewhere – GEOLAND2 applies, not 1. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
No opinion on whether this should be merged or redirected somewhere, but this area is a few minutes from where I live, and the entire region is dotted with otherwise indistinguishable neighborhoods with commercially cute names. There is really nothing to be kept as an article. It is a few streets, not a distinctive neighborhood. BD2412 T 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
delete There continues to be a lot of legalism about the wording of WP:GEOLAND but the usual rule has been that subdivisions need to satisfy GNG, which they almost never do. And this isn't an exception. I also would like to point out that the topo maps are highly inconsistent about whether or not to label subdivisions. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

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

Fails notability for standalone lists and WP:GNG. This article is a table of entries drawn from a single online database, one which isn't a reliable source itself (see Talk:DAD-IS § Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics). Neither this article nor its associated article DAD-IS shows any sources which are independent of the subject, and certainly no significant coverage. All citations are published by FAO, the host of the database. Also fails under WP:NOTCATALOG. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV of the DAIDS system in google books; some of which are books on horses specifically (see my search results here). While the entire list may not be discussed, the concept of the list is which is enough to satisfy WP:NLIST. The fact that a current DAIDS list necessitates linking to WP:PRIMARY materials is not a bad thing.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: A list of things listed in the DAD-IS is, among other things, in constant need of review and updates. Further, the list merely states if a particular horse breed exists within a given nation, regardless of origin or suitability. For the United States, the list is particularly poor — a few years back it even confused slang terms, listing them as standardized breeds. While the DAD-IS itself may be useful to determine if a breed exists at all, particularly for rare breeds in the developing world, a detailed list here on WP is unneeded. Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete a list of things listed in a list that's 'Generally unreliable' and not an RS? That's going to go down well, isn't it? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, do not delete, obviously – it's comprehensively sourced and meets WP:NLIST. The FAO is the single most significant world-level agency collecting and publishing data on all aspects of agriculture and agricultural resources, including animal and plant genetic resources, water, forestry and climate; its databases and publications are widely and frequently cited in academic publications. But even if it weren't, there's nothing to stop anyone from adding other sources to the list. A good one to start with might be this: Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944 – in fact I'll go and add that in a moment. Did the nominator even actually do a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources?

I created this page (as a very new user) in 2011 because I'd been told that the List of horse breeds could not contain red links, and wanted to see what horse breed articles were missing from the project. I note that there's no problem with red links in most of our other lists of livestock breeds (e.g., cattle, chickens, donkeys, goats, geese, pigs, sheep, turkeys, water buffalo – but not ducks). I agree that the page title is not optimal, and suggest one of two options to remedy that without losing the content:

move it to List of horse breeds by country; or, perhaps preferable but considerably more work:
merge it with the List of horse breeds (would you be happy with that, Montanabw?).

Either's fine with me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: You are arguing for another page, but not this one. Nothing in Mason's contributes to this list-article's notability. If this list was simply a tool for your work, then it should be in your userspace. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There has been some confusion. I am not arguing about the notability of the database, but that the information contained within the database is not a reliable source for much of anything because of the nature of its data collection and zero oversight of the database contents, making the database a self-published source. The database itself is notable; the data in it is not. Therefore making a static copy of the database contents (which is this list-article) is both presenting information as reliable (which it isn't) and is just a mirror of a database (see What Wikipedia is not). If someone wants to get this information they can, and should, go directly to the database and get it themselves. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of horse breeds: or if the author prefers, move it to his own userspace. There's no question that the FAO DAD-IS database is notable, with abundant SIGCOV. But this is not an article about DAD-IS, but a reformatted excerpt/query from it, which adds little encyclopedic value beyond what we already have in List of horse breeds. I understand that the list serves as a useful content creation tool for its author, but that would be better accomplished via a userpage. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahmad Boestamam National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of online language tutoring platforms

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST. The one cited source discussing a group is about language learning apps in general, not "language tutoring platforms" specifically. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Products, and Lists. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment there is a non-trivial difference between "language tutoring platforms" and "language learning apps" like Duolingo or Babbel, which are listed at List of language self-study programs. But there isn't sourcing to suggest that Wikipedia needs a separate lists. I'm not sure if I prefer some form of merge (or a redirect to a category), but it should not be kept as-is. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The topic of online language learning does have WP:RS, but the actual platforms that are racking up hundreds of thousands of end-user hours and tens of thousands of tutors seems to be harder to source, though the sites and their userbase evidently exist.GobsPint (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pazhassi's Cave

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

A less referenced version already exists in draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kenichi Nozawa

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG as only 19 of the games came in the J League system, namely Japan's third league. Japanese Wikipedia only has two sources, which are primary. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I notice there are 17 foreign language wiki pages. Do any of those have better sources than the English wiki page?4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Considering most of them were created by the same 2-3 people, I doubt it. I had a look and the sources were basically the same. Procyon117 (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
And those 2-3 people was a sock farm Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The Spanish, Sweedish and German articles have either one source or 3, that are all simple player rosters or match results. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable player with a lack of sourcing. Most of the other wiki language articles appear to be translations of the same info with the same one source... Creator locked, sock farms around them. All kinds of red flags. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Brayan Velásquez

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

There is nothing notable about playing 28 football games in the league of Honduras, and youth world cups do not grant notability either. This would need several good WP:SIGCOV pieces to even be considered as passing the notability bar. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:SPORTSBASIC. Here are a few examples from the just the first couple pages in google news: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] There are more...4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Honduras. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete The above sources are transfer stories/match reports/interviews which are routine coverage and do not pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
If the match report on news media only focuses on a specific footballer and describes them in significant detail independently (that said, tiny piece of or without direct speech), would it still count towards GNG? I also was told that interview sources with big independent analysis would make the article pass GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hanauer Internationale Amateurtheatertage

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

Non-notable festival. Cites one source, which is primary. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This stub cites no independent sources, let alone any significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Rab Nawaz Choudhary

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

Only notable for involvement in a single incident. The article on this, 1959 Canberra shootdown, does not mention him (if it did I would have reirected. Is it even worth a merge? TheLongTone (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep : He is mentioned in The Print and Dawn coverage.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Being mentioned is not notable per WP:PASSING. Geschichte (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Those sources which are viewable such as The Print and Dawn coverage are all trivial passing mentions and do not count towards notability per WP:SIGCOV. I would have supported a merge if I had been able to verify the content, but I am not having any luck finding anything on this man in WP:RS. With the article linking to amazon as a vendor it doesn't make me confident that the source are accurately represented.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep A very much notable individual in Pakistan's military history. WP:BIO1E states that the if event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This is a speedy keep. Muneebll (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Muneebll. samee converse 20:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not agree that the shootdown was a major incident.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Muneebll.--گل زیب (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: As per WP:BIO1E mentioned above. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The canvassed, non-P&G-based votes here add nothing to the debate. This AfD also does not qualify for "speedy keep". I see no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ma'ahad Muhammadi Lelaki

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Islam, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Procedural Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete I could not find coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@LibStar, how did you search for sources? For example, did you search for English-language sources or for Arabic-language ones? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I searched in Google news for Arabic and English names. Only gets 1 hit for Arabic name. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, some of the best sources for schools are local newspapers (which are often not shown in Google News) and government reports. Did you do anything to look for those? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Procedural keep per Sirfurboy or possible keep per WP:SIGCOV. Google books has a lot of hits in Malay language sources with coverage of the school. Whether they contain WP:SIGCOV I can't tell because I can't read them.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

La Salle School, Petaling Jaya

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out on what looks to be an old and historical school with a clear prima facie claim to notability. La Salle schools have a history just about them. Other sources will exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

La Salle School, Klang

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out on what looks to be an old and historical school with a clear prima facie claim to notability. La Salle schools are described in a history text, and there are other sources on this page. It has not been properly researched and sources appear to exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

KOSPINT

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kospint

Articles for deletion/KOSPINT (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete I could not find coverage when I searched under full name. "Kolej Sains Pendidikan Islam Negeri Terengganu". Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kolej Yayasan Saad

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kolej Sultan Abdul Hamid

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Klang High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

King George V School, Seremban

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/King George V School, Seremban (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kajang High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple hits in Google books. A WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been carried out and there is no engagement with the quality of the sourcing that is evident. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Green Road National Secondary School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Green Road National Secondary School (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out on what looks to be an old and historical school with a clear prima facie claim to notability. Note that although the current school is some 60 years old, it is a successor of an older school and so is much older by the way we write school articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

English College Johore Bahru

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out on what looks to be an old and historical school, reasonably well referenced and with a clear prima facie claim to notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Nonsense to be deleted. Its a historical school with well referenced in Malaysia history. Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

İnkılap railway station

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

Although the Turkish article has a few cites I cannot see enough to show it notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Damansara Utama National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple pages of hits in Google news. The page doesn't have much sourcing but deletion is not for cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Convent Taiping

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This is one of a string of nominations made minutes apart with exactly the same rationale. I do not believe a WP:BEFORE has been carried out on what looks to be an old and historical school with a clear prima facie claim to notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Cempaka Schools

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't believe a WP:BEFORE was carried out on this prima facie rather notable school. This is one of a large number of nominations made with the same rationale just minutes apart. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Procedural keep - Tbh I would usually be starting at delete on this one and trying to disprove my assumption, but this is one of multiple nominations all nominated within minutes of each other without any evidence of a deletion rationale or a WP:BEFORE. Looking at the others, many seem fairly obvious keeps with minimal searching. Searching takes a lot of time, and I don't see the case is made that this time be spent. I think we should procedurally keep this one, without prejudice against a renomination by anyone (without the usual six month stand off) who has spent sufficient time looking at the issue to write a fuller deletion rationale. Or just close it as no consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Bukit Mertajam High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly, and this one turns up multiple pages of hits in Google books. The page doesn't have much sourcing but deletion is not for cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Higlada

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

No sources for at least the past 6 years. Online (english language, at least) sources seem to either reference this wiki page or be autogenerated in some other way. Honestly not sure if it still meets WP:GEOLAND so submitting here rather than PROD. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: It seems to exist [10], but it's still lacking any sort of coverage other than a name in a list. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The Gazetteer of Somalia (an older version of the GEOnet Names Server data) only mentions a hill "Higlada Camoore" and a wadi "Dohda Higlada" in other areas of Somalia, but this place exists (sources in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1404221614, also in Bing Maps) - is there a list it can be redirected to? Higlada, Somaliland (the same place, it's on the border) was redirected to Salahlay but is not useful without a mention. Peter James (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Alam Shah Science Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Procedural keep - I don't think there is sufficient deletion rationale. This editor has nominated a large number of schools quickly - this one was 11 minutes after the previous which does not seem like nearly enough time spent of an WP:BEFORE. It has sourcing, and it needs searching, but I am not willing to spend considerable time searching for sources in a language I don't speak, when the only rationale given for all of these is "Fails WP:NSCHOOL" (copied and pasted on all the others). I would be willing to spend more time if the the nom. will show how they have conducted a WP:BEFORE and analysed sources on the page and those available elsewhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The reliable sources covered about basic information on gender, name change and national exam grades of some years. These are enough to provide in-depth coverage and to establish notability.

The curriculum section sources are irrelevant. One of it mentioned the school just because of a student personal comment on an competition event, and it is just among comments from others. Schools do not inherit individual achievement or it would be promotional. Another source was also a passing mention on the school where three entrepreneurs were from the same school. A source about a debate competition featured primarily on another school. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tum Jo Miley

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

Done a quick google search. Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. No sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pardon (film)

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

Hard to search because of the common title but I see the Turkish article is also uncited Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Keeperman

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

No longer a notable personage. The sources included mostly concern the article's previous subject, the small company Passage Publishing. This may well change in the future, but, over all, there are very few RS that could be used to rectify this issue. Roggenwolf (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - It appears that the nom is based on WP:DEL-REASON #8, but the nom fails to show how the article does not meet the standard. Notability is not a past/present thing, so there's no such thing as "no longer a notable personage". If he "was" notable, then he "is" notable. Second, the nom's purpose in proposing deletion seems to be that "most" of the sources are about Passage Publishing. Interestingly, the article was just moved for the exact opposite reason - that sources focus on Keeperan rather than specifically on the Passage. A brief review of existing sources and potential as of yet unused sources indicates there's enough to sustain an article. The article is start-class, although it needs content refocus, but that's enough to warrant alternatives to deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Recuse. I often weigh in on academic deletion discussions but the embarrassing connection to my employer gives me too much of a COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

PS Klabat Jaya Sakti

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of secondary coverage that shows WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Demt1298 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep I do see Indonesian articles such as [11] [12] [13] which demonstrate the club is covered in the media on a consistent basis, but I'm struggling with the language barrier. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per sources above which (appear to) show notability. Giant Snowman 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete The sources in the article and this AfD only cover the game results, not the subject itself. As a team playing in the lowest division of football in Indonesia, its notability is limited to its region and it's relatively unknown on a national level. IMO, it doesn't meet the GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that according to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of sources in the article and this AfD provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep – The sources presented are sufficient for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The sources appear to meet the required standard of notability and provide credible and sufficient evidence Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:SPORTCRIT, "Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage." None of the sources above or in general provide significant coverage of the club itself beyond routine game coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Those sources are, indeed, routine game coverage - and they're the best of what's out there, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only one of the sources cited in the article actually works, and it's WP:ROUTINE. Unfortunately, so are the other sources presented by SportingFlyer. There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to support an article at this time.--DesiMoore (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Those aren't the only sources though - a WP:BEFORE search is tricky because there's a few names this club is called, but there's definitely consistent online coverage from at least 2022. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE searches only found a few results related to game match outcomes, which align with WP:ROUTINE. 10:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Ckfasdf (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

2023 European Cricket League

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

This article is about an amateur cricket competition which fails to meet notability or significant coverage criteria. It is almost totally unsourced and the two references there are both pre-date the event taking place therefore meaning none of the bulk of the information contained in the article, including all the results and statistics, are sourced. An article for the 2024 edition was merged into the page European Cricket League and I propose this as a possible alternative to deletion. Shrug02 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Europe. Shrug02 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Polen Tantuni

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

I rarely eat out but if this was notable I would have thought there would be a Turkish article. Also I don't understand where to find what happened with the previous speedy deletion proposal. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Katepanikion

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

Tagged 2 years ago and still uncited. Might be notable but it was too difficult for me to tell - no doubt one of you knows Chidgk1 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Europe, Greece, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to katepano would be fine, as the topic is also covered there. Constantine ✍ 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Düşkünlük Meydanı

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

Doesn’t seem to be notable enough for its own article. No objection to a merge but I don’t know the subject so no idea what would be best. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kızım Nerede?

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

Tagged uncited for over a decade and Turkish article also uncited. There must be thousands of Turkish TV series as they generally run for only a few months or a year or two. I searched but could not see how this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Asya (1994 album)

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

One of many uncited Turkish albums which I mentioned to the albums project this one was tagged uncited over 5 years ago. I searched but sources are discogs etc. Is that enough to show notability? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Eric Joris

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

Artist that doesn't appear notable. Can't find any indication that this person is an important figure in the arts, or played a major role in a significant or well-known work. A search of google and linkedin indicates that the creator of the article is or was an employee of the subject. William Graham ^talk 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Arts. William Graham ^talk 16:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Entirely promotional gobbledygook. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Esophur

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

This BLP does not meet the notability criteria per WP:SINGER and relies heavily on unreliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ealing Charity Christmas Card Shop

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously deleted. The sources provided are almost all local from Ealing thus failing WP:AUD to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nsure

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

Fails WP:NCORP Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Florida. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete this page? Meiswikepiediaeditor (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The nominator believes it should be deleted because it does not meet the notability criteria for companies. Which are discussed on the WP:NCORP page. Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As mentioned by the nominator, there is no indication that this company (which has perhaps <100 employees) meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There is no claim to notability in the text itself (which describes a normal small company). The references in the article are all press releases, "customer testimonials" and primary or run-of-the-mill webpages that do not contribute to notability. In terms of available sources, outside the article, a WP:BEFORE search just returns the same type of coverage we might expect for any such small-to-medium sized company. Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mary-Rose Papandrea

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers.
As always, lawyers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their careers in third-party sources independent of their own personal control -- but this cites no GNG-building sources at all, and instead is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources self-published by directly-affiliated non-media organizations (e.g. staff profiles and press releases self-published by her own employers), and media hits that briefly namecheck her as a provider of soundbite in an article whose principal subject is something or somebody else, none of which constitutes support for notability: the stuff that's about her isn't reliable, and the stuff that's reliable isn't about her.
Note that this has already been speedy-deleted at least once as a G11, and has gone through more than one round of move-warring as it was sequestered in draftspace by established editors before being moved back into mainspace by its creator without substantive improvement to address the reasons why it was getting draftspaced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The named chairs (one of which is explicitly labeled as a distinguished professorship) make this a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. She also has good citations for law (often a low-citation field) [14] making a case for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Habib Rahman (weightlifter)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only could find coverage of a mayor of the same name. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Easily fails WP:NOLY. Lacks reliable secondary sources to establish nobility. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Brennock

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

Cited only to a company website and tagged for lack of sources and issues with notability since February 2022. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Article subject requests deletion. (VRT Ticket 2024112910006401) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

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

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Obviously the page itself needs to have sources added. What persuades me towards keep is that the organisation is quoted quite a lot as part of the CV or similar of people, e.g. membership, talks, award and Orcid entries as examples. (There are many more of these.) This indicates that it has enough stature that people mention it, albeit this is not as strong as specific articles on it.

Sunaina Kejriwal

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

Fails WP:GNG. No proper obituaries. Notability is not inherited. Edwardx (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mandi

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

One of the several hundred JNV schools in India, fails WP:NSCHOOL. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Himachal Pradesh. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. Tagged A7 and deleted by Phantomsteve. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Sucex Bright

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

All sources cited are non reliable because they are interviews and paid for articles. A careful review of all sources will reveal their unreliability Mekomo (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

AeroJet

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

Fails WP:NORG, there are only two references, one to planespotters and another one to this bulletin board where it is mentioned in passing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Angola. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

TezJet

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

Non notable airlines, most of the sources are sourced to planespotters, own website or other similar sources. Fails WP:NORG. This article was also created by an editor with undisclosed COI in the airlines.[15] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Kyrgyzstan. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Vanvaas

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

Upcoming film with no independent or secondary sources. Draftified to allow for more development but immediately restored to mainspace. All the sources are sponsored content or press releases. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. bonadea contributions talk 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: release in a month, notable cast and director; coverage exists: it is not independent but includes verification of cast,, plot, director's ideas in interviews (https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/nana-patekar-utkarsh-sharma-journey-gets-renamed-to-vanvaas-exclusive-article-111905151 https://www.aninews.in/news/entertainment/bollywood/this-topic-touches-600-crore-people-director-anil-sharma-on-his-new-project-vanvaas-with-nana-patekar20241019232620/) etc, so that redirecting or draftifying for a month does not seem completely necessary (Deletion would be disruptive and I am absolutely opposed to that outcome.) but if other users disagree with a plain keep, then redraftify. -Mushy Yank. 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, both sources are in the article (more than once I think — there's a lot of duplicate sources in there, and a lot of disruptive refbombing with more and more copies of the same crap advertorials) and they are worse than useless. Unless there are independent sources there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: There is many news references for verification. And also film cast and director/producer is also notable.--PQR01 (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: I am not too much into this but while I do think that Indeed the page has not been created properly, I believe it can significantly be improved as there is not much time left in the release of this movie. I believe the page should be draftified once again, the author has already been blocked indefinitely and now I believe the other editors will be able to improve the draft and add independent, reliable sources to establish notability and submit it for AfC once it's ready. -- AstuteFlicker (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstuteFlicker:, just to clarify, are you voting to keep or draftify?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry :).. That is the reason why I said I am not too much into this. I meant to Draftify this article again... AstuteFlicker (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify - Just because it is about to be released is no reason to keep a page that does not meet notability guidelines. Draftify until the release and there are reviews, unless it can be shown there is something notable about the production. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The film has garnered SigCov in sources such as Times of India, India Today, and DNA India. These outlets have extensively reported on the film's promotional activities, cast, and production details and so passes WP:NFF. Also, with ongoing media attention, it is likely to gain further SigCov, reinforcing its notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw those references as well, but which ones are considered reliable? I am specifically asking about the reference, not the publication as these are non-bylined sources falling under churnalism or WP:NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I recommend seeking out current sources, as there are enough secondary coverages available. As I mentioned earlier, with the movie set to release in less than a month, media attention around its post-production and details is increasing daily, particularly given that many of the cast and crew members are well-known figures in the industry. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sought out current sources. You I cannot find them. You have failed to provide them upon me asking for them. The fact it releases in less than a month is not a reason to keep something that does not have the significant coverage to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep with draftify as second choice. My first impulse was that a film not yet released is usually not notable, but a cursory look at the sources has changed my mind. I will defer to anyone who has read them in depth. I did not. Will note that notability may change. An upcoming film may be cease to be notable if it later flops or proves unimportant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pradhaan Air Express

AfDs for this article:

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

It was originally deleted but recreated by AKS.9955 the following month, all coverage appears to be about its launch, there's no significant coverage outside that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Delhi. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
WEAK KEEP: some coverage about the commercial launch of the airline, this is a RS [16], as is the Business Standard now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Business standard source is a copied syndicated feed from PTI, not that good for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Asman Airlines

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

Non notable company, most of the references are spam and any real coverage is about its first flight. Fails WP:NORG.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Kyrgyzstan. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 in Philippine television

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

Too soon for the article. also non-cited content and empty tables. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to retain this because the year 2025 is approaching. Thank you Glenn23-408649 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Snou Strait

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

No refs on the page for many years. Many other language wikis have pages but I'm not seeing usable reliable sources to cite. I'm not finding much else, but I don't speak any of the relevant languages, I would be interested to see if anyone can find anything which would meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Japan, and Russia. JMWt (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nowruz-e Ali

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

Mass-created abadi article by Carlossuarez46. On the day he created this article, he created at least 450 others. I say "at least" because upwards of 20,000 C46 articles have been deleted already, and these won't show up in this search. No known location beyond the general area, appears to possibly be a store in the city of Izeh - the Iranian census is often counted around land-marks and potentially in this case this was simply the count of people around this store. Without a known location it is impossible to verify that this is an actual community and not just a census-counting-unit. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Phil Gilman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources and IMDB supplied. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This subject has won the London Classic darts tournament and British Open, two prestigious winnings with the look of things. This article could be kept on this basis alone, but if anyone finds a slight coverage, then this should be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep- For winning the prestigious British Open in 1992 Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Eyüp Can (journalist)

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

Fails on WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG and the references can't open. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Turkey. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Totally unsourced. The article in Turkish Wikipedia looks to be copied from this version. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I added some sources, so as per WP:HEYMANN. Baqi:) (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Although, you added all the last sentence Eyüp Can has two children. need a citations and the article wasn't inline in encyclopedic tone. And you didn't remove the link rot of biography. As per Maile said, It's copied from the article of Turkish Wikipedia. Royiswariii Talk! 09:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Japanese occupation of India

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

A non-essential disambiguation page. Obviously made up by creator, and no claim of significance. There's no such thing like "Japanese occupation of India" to begin with, nothing more than a hoax. Garudam ^Talk! 10:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Politics, Social science, Disambiguations, Japan, Myanmar, India, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, United Kingdom, and Islands. Garudam ^Talk! 10:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to India in World War II, where both entries/links are already present. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pavol Zemanovič

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

His professional career only lasted three minutes and he has disappeared for over one decade. The only secondary source I found is a passing mention on SME. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no credible claim to notability worth discussing. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of wars involving South Korea

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

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

Korea until 1948
North Korea since 1948
South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tahir Zaman Priyo

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Rajat Dalal

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

Participating in a reality show alone does not make someone notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, countless individuals in India could potentially have articles created every day. This situation clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. At present, I do not believe the subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:TOOSOON also applies in this case. The claim of “winning several medals for India” is vague and unexplained without any source. Zuck28 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zuck28 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

ModelRight

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

No evidence of notability Greenman (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Maatkit

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability Greenman (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

St Thomas Church, Nalukody

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

After doing WP:BEFORE, I cannot find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV or notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Lake Station, Indiana

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

Another case where Baker actually says this was a post office, and yes, the topos show it was the site of a rail station. And there's nothing much there now. The lake, btw, is two miles to the west. Mangoe (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tahmid Bhuiyan Tamim

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to List of people who died in the July massacre and protect since creator has been undoing prior similar redirects. Star Mississippi 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Farhan Faiyaaz

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kanawha people

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

WP:TNT, this doesn't appear to be about a notable topic, and I can't find any scholarly literature discussing the subject. The idea that the Kanawha people are the ancestor's of Native Americans appears to be fictitious, or at least incredibly fringe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Piscataway people per sources like [17], which indicate that "Kanawha" is used at least in part as a synonym for the Piscataway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete the original Special:PermaLink/229303722 shows this was an essay titled "Kanawha Valley's Prehistoric people", that has been mojibaked into its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'm suprised an article as bad as this one has stuck around for this long. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is a real people group mentioned in history journals and books. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I'm not saying the current text is accurate, but I have a big problem with deleting an article on a Native American people group. That would be participating in erasure which is morally problematic in light of the history of Native American genocide in the United States. The answer is to trim out unsupported content and validate what we can with the sources we can locate. Stubifying it would be better than deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
When people are writing "Kanawha people" are they referring to a distinct ethnic group, or a general term for Native Americans inhabiting the Kanawha area? If the latter, I hardly see how this warrants a standalone article. The sources you mention are passing references that are completely inadequate to construct any kind of meaningful article about the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sources better than this are needed. However, it is clearly a people group as they are being referenced as living in New England in one source, and Kentucky in another at various points in history. It's not attached just to the Kanawha Valley. I'll see if I can find anything in JSTOR or EBSCOE that gives a better defined definition.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The first four of those sources appear to be referring to white settlers in the Kanawha Valley. The only mention in the Cotterill source, in a passage about a surveying party in Kentucky, is in the sentence, So many of the Kanawha people had joined the expedition that there were now thirty-three men in the party, although four of the original members had returned home for fear of the Indians. The Stealy source is talking about the cost of hiring slaves in Kanawha County, and the only mention of Kanawha people is in the phrase, I discover that the people of this country don't like to hire to the Kanawha people, it is a long distance & near the state of Ohio. The Davisson source is about the Union army in Kentucky during the Civil War, long after Native Americans had been forced out of Kentucky, and the only mention of 'Kanawha people' is in the sentence, I propose ... to induce the Kanawha people to take a more decided course. The Engineering and Mining Journal source, from 1910, says, The New River and Kanawha people have been busy in New England territory this spring, offering coal at very low prices. I think it is quite clear that those sources are referring to white settlers/residents of the Kanawha Valley, and not to any group Native American people. Donald Albury 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It could be, but the Scoggins source below clearly is referring to a Native people group that the Kanawha Valley is named after (not the other way around). That people group lived in several places according to that source. That source is enough to establish that deletion is not the answer here and WP:ATD at the very least is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I must say that the Scoggins source does not support any content in the article other than the possibility that "Kanawha" was the name of a Native American group that moved to the valley. I do not think that there is anything in the present article that can be salvaged. Donald Albury 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your point? I said I didn’t think current text was accurate and the article should be stubified to the reliable sources we find. Clearly we could write a short paragraph based on Scoggins and the journal article provided above by the nominator. That would take all of five minutes to do.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And it would be a sub-stub, unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. Better to be a redirect to an article that can provide context. I understand that you are concerned with Native American history being covered in Wikipedia. I am too. But, if there is next to nothing reliably sourced to say about a group, it is better to put what little can be sourced as a section or sub-section in a larger article, or even as an entry in a Boldlist. Donald Albury 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think this is referring to St. Albans Site. Haven't looked through all the "Kanawha people" links above but the appear to have been misread. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This old article on the history of Kanawha County from West Virginia University political science department says that the Kanawha were a people who lived in the area during the early British colonial Period, but this honestly this isn't a great source and I haven't been able to find anything better, so maybe a redirect to Kanawha_River#History would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the existing article there wood be Adena culture. oops colonial period, will look for more. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This tribe, a branch of the Algonquin family, was closely related to the Nanticokes and Delawares who resided in what are now the states of Delaware and Maryland. During the seventeenth century, the name of this tribe was variously recorded by early English settlers as “Conoys,” “Conoise,” “Canawese,” “Cohnawas,” “Canaways,” and ultimately, “Kanawhas.”
— KANAWHA Michael C. Scoggins

Conoys redirects to Piscataway people

looks like a museum bulletin but by a published author. fiveby(zero) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, that's definitely an improvement. Looking at other sources, they seem to agree on the synonymy between Conoys and Piscataway, so I would support redirecting to that article (though I am unclear if as to whether the term "Kanawha" has been applied to multiple distinct Native American groups). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much forward we are here. Scoggins looks to be from Hale, John P. (1891). History of the great Kanawha Valley. p. 63. That's this John P. Hale. I'd like to find something more recent and more affirmative than the author's "probably derived by evolution from..." fiveby(zero) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
There does appear to be some confusion about the issue in the literature. The Lenape and Their Legends (1885} states: [23]

The fourth member of the Wapanachki was that nation variously called in the old records Conoys, Ganawese or Canaways, the proper form of which Mr. Heckewelder states to be Canai. Considerable obscurity has rested on the early location and affiliation of this people. Mr. Heckewelder vaguely places them "at a distance on the Potomac," and supposes them to have been the Kanawhas of West Virginia. This is a loose guess. They were, in fact, none other than the Piscataways of Southern Maryland, who occupied the area between Chesapeake Bay and the lower Potomac, about St. Mary's, and along the Piscataway creek and Patuxent river.

The Indian wars of Pennsylvania (1929) p. 53 states [24]: The Conoy, also called the Ganawese and the Piscataway, inhabited parts of Pennsylvania during the historic period. They were an Algonquin tribe, closely related to the Delawares, whom they called "grandfathers," and from whose ancestral stem they no doubt sprang. Heckewelder, an authority on the history of the Delawares and kindred tribes, believed them to be identical with the Kanawha, for whom the chief river of West Virginia is named ; and it seems that the names, Conoy and Ganawese, are simply different forms of the name Kanawha, though it is difficult to explain the application of the same name to the Piscataway tribe of Maryland, except on the theory that this tribe once lived on the Kanawha.

The 2022 book chapter "Tribal Collaborations and Indigenous Representation in Higher Education: Challenges, Successes, and Suggestions for Attaining the SDGs" states: The Piscataway Rico Newman, Piscataway elder and MIHEA participant, relays some history of the Piscataway people: The Piscataway-Kanawha (Piscataway) are the “People Who Live Where Waters Blend Below Rapids.” Prior to colonization, the Piscataway developed well-orchestrated lifeways that sustained them for centuries.

Reading the literature. "Kanawha" also appears to be used for a stone projectile point type produced in the early Holocene, long before the colonial period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Based on Scoggins, it seems like it would be possible to keep the article if it were substantially rewritten. However, it would be equally plausible to incorporate that content into the Piscataway people article and redirect it to that page. Either would be fine, but I do think closing this AFD is going to require someone to step in do the work of either recrafting the current page, or writing a bit in the Piscataway people article so that a redirect is appropriate. That article currently doesn't even mention the Kanawha people.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is really anything to say in any article yet. Appreciate your view on erasure but in my opinion worse would be getting this wrong and creating some fiction about a people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence between the journal article presented by the nominator above (who is advocating for a redirect) and the Scoggins source to put something into the Piscataway people article at the very least. Scoggins is after all a published historian. At some point, we just have to trust subject matter experts and their judgement. Worse in my view would be to ignore these sources as a form of WP:Systemic bias; something wikipedia struggles with when it comes to marginalized people groups (which has been researched).4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete and redirect per nom. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to an appropriate article. - Donald Albury 13:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait for input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America or Keep and start a renaming or merge discussion on the article talkpage. The article was originally titled Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) then moved to Kanawha valley people and then to Kanawha people. The intent here was clearly to describe a prehistoric people known from St. Albans Site and probably others. I don't think the content is very good and may be including description of the later Adena culture. The article is misnamed, probably has the wrong scope, and not very high quality but i think the original intent of the content is completely appropriate for WP.

The confusing name has led us down the path of looking at the colonial era Conoy tribe and whether or not Kanawha is a synonym. There was some dispute about the name in sources since John Heckewelder's suggestion that Kanawha was from Conoy but i think in our recent sources that has been accepted and not really questioned. Redirects from Kanawha to Piscataway are appropriate but then we have some additional confusion to work out. That is the difference between a 'tribe' and a 'people'. I think there is widespread confusion as to peoples and subdivision such as 'tribe' or 'band' and how they are recorded and named throughout history and how they might be organized or recognized today. There were both a Conoy tribe (the Conoy proper or Piscataway) and it seems a Conoy people.pp 125-6 I think this is represented on WP as Piscataway people (Conoy people) and Piscataway-Conoy Tribe of Maryland (Conoy tribe)?

I don't really have a whole lot of confidence for much of this, so i think input from some more knowledgeable editors is necessary. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, i do not think it would be easy or practical to have an article that only covers the prehistoric people. The content should probably be merged somewhere but i have no real idea to where. It should definitely not be merged to any Piscataway or Conoy people or tribe. fiveby(zero) 16:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The content is frankly so lacklustre that it would need to be entirely rewritten to include anywhere. I think Kanawha Valley (prehistoric people) and Kanawha valley people can be redirected to Kanawha River#History as these clearly relate more to the geographical location. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That is much better content, and now i see you suggested that as a target above and i missed it distracted by the Conoy. My confusion is probably more due to distaste as to how WP titles and scopes people and tribe articles in general. The closer might have a tough time with all the confusion and redirects involved but i think you have the best plan here so Note to closer: consider my vote what Hemiauchenia says. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Piscataway people: per the reasoning given by Hemiauchenia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Piscataway people per Hemiauchenia.Bcbc24 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Convert to disambiguation page, because no single redirect target is satisfactory. Most of the article as written (really more of a school essay than anything) covers the whole experience of the colonization of the Americas by settlers from Asia thousands of years ago. But the object, and the last couple of sections, seems to have been to describe the native people who lived in the Kanawha Valley before it was settled by Europeans. Those were decidedly not Piscataway, even though the word "Kanawha" may have been used at one point synonymously with "Piscataway" and perhaps derived from "Conoy". Our article about the Piscataway seems to exclude any possibility that they ever lived in the Kanawha Valley, and that alone would confuse readers who come across this title.

At the same time, I cannot determine whether there is any other article on a group of American Indians who would be described this way, and be the definitive redirect target: the last major groups who might have inhabited the Kanawha Valley would be the Fort Ancient culture and the Shawnee, who may or may not have been identical (evidently that has not yet been determined). But the degree to which the Kanawha Valley was inhabited, rather than merely transited during this period is also unclear; most archaeological sites are older and probably date to the time of the Mound Builders, a vague term which in this case really refers to the Adena and Hopewell cultures. All of these would correctly be described as "Kanawha people", and it is not unlikely that some readers would also expect this title to describe the later, European settlers of the valley, including but not limited to modern-day Kanawha County, another possible redirect target.

Since all of these are plausible targets, and the article contains almost nothing that is not already in one or more of them, the best way to resolve the issue is to convert this into a disambiguation page—either one that strictly follows the normal disambiguation page criteria, or perhaps a more narrative one that explains how the phrase might apply to different but related groups—including the Piscataway, of course, but certainly not redirecting to them, since that would likely astonish most readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with this proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a closer might redirect this article to Piscataway people because of the bolded statements, it's not clear to me that this is the consensus or would be appropriate. First, there are doubts where this "people" is a Native American tribe or just referring to "people who live in Kanawha". Secondly, there is no mention of Kanawha people at this suggested target article. Finally, there are alternative suggestions including Keep, Delete or redirection to a different target article based on the location of Kanawha, West Virginia. So, since I don't see a firm consensus and lots of different arguments floating around here as recently as yesterday, I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment the arguments that "Kanawha" is an alternate spelling of "Conoy" have some merit. But (largely for the reasons expressed by Liz) I can't endorse the redirect to Piscataway people. Perhaps a DAB page would be an option. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I think the assertion that there is no "Kanawha people" is fundamentally not true as Scoggins was absolutely clear that the "Kanawha Valley" was named after the "Kanawha people" who lived elsewhere prior to being the first people to settle in the Kanawha Valley. The valley was named after the people group, not the other way around. The sources are also pretty clear that Kanawha were/are a branch of the Piscataway people (ie. Conoy). The best solution here is to add a sentence to the Piscataway people article and then redirect to that page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
A viable second option would be to turn this into a dab bage with a reference to the Conoy/Piscataway people. And a possible second meaning of people living or from the "Kanawha Valley". That might be the best so we cover all bases.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Why would that be better than a redirect? Any group known to have lived in the valley should be mentioned in the history section of the Kanawha County article. I see that the Kanawha River article does list various cultures and peoples that have occupied the valley, although nothing is sourced. But I don't think people will be looking for "Kanawha people" when they are interested in the Adena or Fort Ancient cultures. And if they are interested in earlier occupants of the valley, how would they look for "Kanawha people" rather "History of Kanawha County" or "History of the Kanawha River"? Donald Albury 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any solution which doesn't include either a redirect or a navigational link at a DAB page to Piscataway people per the journal article cited towards the top and the Scoggins source. Not doing that erases that this is indeed a real Native American people group and not just natives who happened to live in the Kanawha Valley. Scoggins is clear the Kanawha were the Kanawha before they ever arrived in the Kanawha Valley, and the valley was named for them.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

And a redirect is my preference. I don't think there is any case for calling any other group that has lived in the valley "Kanawha people" in an encyclopedic sense. Donald Albury 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There are some people commenting who oppose redirecting to Piscataway people arguing that the term "Kanawha people" has been applied more generically to people living the "Kanawha Valley" in some cases. (This is true according to Scoggins who points out the term has been used inconsistently) A dab page would allow us to articulate the discrepancy by saying "Kanawha people" could refer to 1: an alternative spelling of the Conoy people which is a subset of the Piscataway people or 2. people who reside or originated from the Kanawha Valley. This would allow for the various uses of the term as described by Scoggins. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A redirect to Piscataway people seems like the leading alternative to deletion, but there's no consensus for deletion. There's no consensus even as to what the article is about.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pincer (biology)

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

Mainly per the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy -- this explains what pincers may refer to, but its principle purpose is to explain that "these are not the same thing", not to say anything meaningful about all pincers in general. It serves as a dictionary definition of pincers. Proposing this to be replaced with a disambiguation page. Did some googling to try to find sources discussing pincers generally; found none. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep While it may be a dreadfully underdeveloped article, that doesn't mean it lacks potential. The article could easily describe the evolution of pincers[25], their purpose in species [26], their methods of action, their presence across different clades, and probably even their role in culture (🦀). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Last One (film)

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

WP:TOOEARLY. Draftify. This article looks like a PR work for Lokesh Kumar if anything. No indication that the film started filming or is going to release anytime soon. The director's page mentions that this film is in preproduction. DareshMohan (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Lokesh_Kumar#Filmography: until more is known. -Mushy Yank. 13:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Here are some reviews of the tour: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] See also: [34], [35]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete or restore redirect to Union J. This had previously been merged. There are a couple of reviews in those sources, but the first source isn't bylined (and not a RS from the look of it); the Irish Independent is RS, SIGCOV; Oxford Mail local media not bylined; Mancunian Matters is hyper-local but has editorial oversight and is bylined; HitTheFloor is debatable, but a review nonetheless and there's an editor in place; Liverpool Echo is a WP:ROUTINE gig announcement from their sports editor (!); The Scotsman is a bylined review in an RS; the last two sources are an album review and a tour announcement in the Birmingham Mail. All in all, this is mostly routine, does have a couple decent gig reviews in RS but in the whole is not the stuff that amounts to making the TOUR notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [36]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Americanoid

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

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Archaeology. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Based on searches this was a theory regarding Siberian and other northern ancient peoples that was promulgated in the early 20th century, specifically by Russian anthropologists. As it is no longer an accepted designation, a few sentences in an article for the subsequent theory should suffice. I did find one article that criticized the term and attributed it specifically to Russian racism, but that perhaps could be a marker of scientific enmity and distrust of Russian science. Lamona (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep and reformat as a WP:Disambiguation page and merge appropriate content Vladimir Jochelson per WP:ATD. Given that there are two verifiable definitions being used, one linking to Vladimir Jochelson and the other Ancient North Eurasian/Okunev culture, this is a reasonable navigational page.4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Okunev culture. There's no need for a merge as the subject is already covered sufficiently there. No need for a DAB page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Vladimir Jochelson. Short, poorly sourced article about a theory by a notable scholar seems like an obvious merge to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with this merge to help reach a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Would be fine with merging with Vladimir Jochelson as well, for consensus. PersusjCP (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Neoauthoritarianism (China)

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

Poster-child for WP:TNT - the article, as it stands, is a substantial WP:COATRACK which is rife with WP:SYNTH that attempts to conflate Neoauthoritarianism (xīn quánwēi zhǔyì) with Neoconservativism (xīn bǎoshǒu zhǔyì) largely on the basis of a single book from 2008. This has led to an article which has been tagged as "reading like a personal essay" since March of this year. Neoauthoritarianism is an actual historical ideology that might warrant a page but this page, as it is right now, does not address that topic, instead being a clearing house for the WP:POV assertion that Chinese government is right-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I don't agree with your argument, and even if your argument is assumed to be correct, there is no reason for the article to be removed from Wikipedia. Neoauthoritarianism is an existing political ideology and is an article that is listed without any problems in Chinese Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well. Pro-KMT just tried to add Slajoz Zizek commentaries on Deng as a fascist... I don't have any problem with Zizek personally but I'm not sure it belong here, other people would have to comment. I'll try to review these changes some time...FourLights (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You removed the Slajoz Zizek commentaries that were added to the article. And I don't intend to add Slajoz Zizek commentaries back to the article. Excessive criticism of me is unnecessary because the parts I added or edited in the Neoauthoritarianism (China) article are limited to a few. (Even in the case of the template I created, I'm not the only one who edited it.) ProKMT (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Neoconservativism was merged into this article on the basis that, based on our sources, one developed into the other. I mostly put together Neoauthoritarianism one, other people decided to merge neoconservativism into this one. Part of your request is just re-write. I don't have any objection to working on this page again - and I certainly am capable of great labors - but this isn't a great time for me to put a lot into it, and it's not the only article I would be working on cleaning. It doesn't mean that it can't happen, it just hasn't been a priority.FourLights (talk)

If you personally believe that Neoconservativism is distinct and should be seperated into another page again, then you might contribute material to establish this distinction, and why they don't belong as page. I don't know. One developed into the as far as people who put them together know. Sinology is a limited subject in the west, although it can be developed there is often a scarcity of materials. Sources in another language might be end up being needed, I don't speak other languages, but I do enjoy translating them. FourLights (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely do contend that neoconservativism is distinct from neoauthoritarianism which, according to most reliable sources fell out of favor with the CPC after the Tiananmen Square incident. Furthermore, things like the Zizek quote, the use of the WP:FRINGE Hageback book, the regular use of citations to support statements not in those citations (see the Zheng, Yongnian citation in the lede for an early example), and the over-reliance on the Chris Bramnal book that was published during the Hu administration to comment on phenomena that the article tries to tie to the current Xi administration are why I say that the dramatic step of WP:TNT is needed here. This article is a giant coatrack as it stands. About the only thing worth keeping here is the name. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and blow it up along with Pro-KMT's template, I can try to revive it later. Since I haven't read your purported sources, I have no idea what you're talking about with regards the distinctions, but Pro-KMT has gone loony with the article anyway. When I do try to revive it, it might involve an additional source, but probably not the one's haven't named since I don't know about them.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Send me a link where I read everything that's been done here over the last several months after you blow it up. In case it turns out anything good was contributed.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Neoauthoritarianism is largely divided into Northern Factions 北派 and Southern Factions 南派. Prior to the Tiananmen Square incident, Northern Factions became more popular in the CCP, but they fell as part of the Northern Factions was associated with the Tiananmen Square incident. Later, the CCP's Neoauthoritarianism was led by Southern Factions. The Northern Factions were more economically liberal, and the Southern Factions were state capitalist. (This is what I remember, and it may not be accurate.) Wouldn't it be better to creative "Northern Factions" 北派 and "Southern Factions" 南派 as separate English articles rather than separate "Neoauthoritarianism" and "Neoconservatism"? I strongly oppose the separation of "Neoauthoritarianism" and "Neoconservatism" into individual articles, and I also oppose the deletion of articles. ProKMT (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BATHWATER. Parts with WP:COAT should be trimmed down, but that is not a good argument for wholesale deletion. - Amigao (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Pro-KMT has created a template, spamming it all over the places. If Neo-authoritarian has that kind of scope, the article doesn't have that kind of development. Why is there a neo-authoritarianism template spammed all over the place. The original article I had may have been "written like an essay" and needed some fixing but it was at least intended to be academic. Fixing it up will take time I don't have as much of right now.FourLights (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If Simon had some additional sources, including ones that distinguish neoauthoritarianism and neo-conservativism, I would be able to put together a new article(s) some time more easily. Currently it is complained it doesn't have enough source material and that the two are conflated. I can't do anything with that, and pro-KMT comes in with materials speculating about people being fascist. If someone else has knowledge they need to step in with relevant information when they can or I'm just wasting time. I'm not putting much effort into this until it's resolved. I already made an article with the limited information I had.FourLights (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the contents of the Neoauthoritarianism (China) article were not written by me. There is no reason to constantly criticize me by mentioning my username. ProKMT (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This is probably a consequence of the pushback they encountered at Template_talk:Conservatism_in_China. I'm not against them working in the topic area but expanding templates and adding them elsewhere should be based on the main Neoauthoritarianism/conservatism article, which is not in the best state as pointed out. Vacosea (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there has been an alarming movement toward a synthesized hypothesis regarding the CPC that is ahistorical and driven by a WP:POV desire to shift public perceptions of the left-right dichotomy between the CPC and the KMT. This has had a deleterious impact across a broad subset of articles about Chinese politics, history and BLPs. I'm not accusing any single editor of being fully responsible for this but, in the case of this article, the WP:SYNTH has become so pervasive that there's nothing of encyclopedic value remaining and we basically have to tear it up and start over. Frankly I'm not sure how we're going to clean up this mess because so many citations are being incorrectly used in so many articles that literally every citation in every article in this cluster will have to be independently reviewed to determine it's being used appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Greetings. I finally see a very interesting argument. I'd like to point out that this division of your spectrum is, at least, not modern and comprehensive enough, and I was planning to write something about it recently, but I'm also busy with Asian Month. Of course, it doesn't make much difference if I say anything, what matters is what the most recent reference sources are saying: Some modern scholars believe that being a leftist in China might have more to do with nationalism, conservatism and orthordox communism (Stanford, Political Research Quarterly, Made In China Journal, Political Psychology). I realize of course that this is equally incomplete, but to call it "shift public perceptions of the left-right dichotomy between the CPC and the KMT" is overly alarmist and inappropriate. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT. What a mess, and shallow, too. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Article satisfies Wikipedia:GNG, but may need to be rewritten. Rewriting after deletion and rewriting without deletion (e.g. stubifying) are both acceptable options for me. You may also regards this as a weak keep. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that when editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The reasons that are given for deletion are primarily that the article is not well-written and/or contains a bunch of novel synthesis. Even if this is granted, there is a large amount of scholarly coverage of this exact topic, which is the ideological movement that began in the 1980s and its progeny. The existence of the multitude of sourcing, combined with good-faith talk page discussions, will be enough to fix the article by editing alone. (As an aside, Neo-authoritarianism (xin quanwei zhuyi; 新权威主义) is generally treated as a a distinct thing than neo-conservatism (xin baoshou zhuyi; 新保守主义), though the two are very closely related in terms of historical development.)
Because this is ultimately something that can be fixed by editing the page, and the sources exist to do so (and are accessible through WP:TWL), I'd prefer keeping the page here rather than WP:IAR deleting it.
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The issues with this article are solvable through normal editing.4meter4 (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of heirs to the throne of Liechtenstein

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

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Liechtenstein. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Do we really need a list of heirs presumptive to a relic of an unholy, non-Italian principality? If yes, then please find at least one more secondary source to get to WP:SIGCOV, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, Liechtenstein is still a sovereign country in 2024, so it's not unreasonable to imagine. But I agree that we'd need sources to justify keeping this in line with WP:NLIST; something that talks about the list of the heirs to the throne would be helpful in this regard. Otherwise this is just OR or fails WP:V/WP:MINREF. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The lack sourcing concern raised by the nominator can be solved through normal editing. Just looking at sources in a search on "succession" "Liechtenstein" and googling each name on that list with those words, I could find sources validating all of these people. The content is able to be verified.4meter4 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind adding the sources you've found to the article, or at least sharing the links here for posterity's sake? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of heirs to the Greek throne

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

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Do we really need a list of heirs presumptive to a deposed monarchy? This is a question similar to the list for Liechtenstein. If yes, then please find at least one more secondary source to get to WP:SIGCOV, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The lack sourcing concern raised by the nominator can be solved through normal editing. Just looking at sources in a search on "succession" "Greece" and googling each name on that list with those words, I could find sources validating all of these people. The content is able to be verified.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Guru Nanak University

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. The university is said to have been established this year, and without significant coverage, it cannot pass WP:GNG. Universities, colleges, and schools are not inherently notable; they must meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. This subject fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 05:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 05:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India).There is coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]^[5]^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]^[10]

These sources are just passing mentions and WP:TRIVIAL; such mentions cannot make the subject meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

References

^ Today, Telangana (11 August 2024). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University organises HR Conclave on 'Preparing the Workforce for the Future'". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ "Guru Nanak University Focuses on Industry-Academia Collaboration for Top Ranking". Deccan Chronicle. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Reddy, R. Ravikanth (3 July 2023). "Govt. faces challenges in shifting "Illegally" admitted students in Guru Nanak and Sreenidhi Universities". The Hindu. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Vatyam, Nirupa (10 July 2023). "Guru Nanak Students Fight Back: Refuse Relocation, Seek Compensation & Apology". The Times of India. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Today, Telangana (8 July 2023). "Hyderabad: Huge relief for Guru Nanak University, Sreenidhi University students". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ The Hans India (27 April 2023). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University students take to streets, seek recognition". Andhra Pradesh Breaking News, Telangana News, Hyderabad News Updates, National News, Breaking News. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Phaniharan, VRC (18 May 2023). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University makes tall claims on study courses". Andhra Pradesh Breaking News, Telangana News, Hyderabad News Updates, National News, Breaking News. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Today, Telangana (4 September 2022). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University holds HR Conclave". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ Chotrani, Ratna (29 August 2022). "Telangana: Guru Nanak Institutions granted university status". The Siasat Daily. Retrieved 29 November 2024.
^ "Top 15 Private Technical Universities". Outlook India. 2 August 2024. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Covers controversial incidents at the university, with sources like Times of India - Relocation Issues, The Hindu - Illegal Admission and few more online meeting WP:SUBSTANTIAL. Another solid one is Siasat - University Status, and maybe this: Deccan Chronicle - Industry-Academia Collaboration counts towards GNG. That said, no reason to delete but, the article is pretty rough and could use a lot of work to improve it.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Mims Mentor: First of all, The Times of India is not a generally reliable source, so it does not count towards notability per WP:TOI. The Hindu article does not provide any in-depth coverage of the college. It mainly discusses the issue of “illegal” admissions and the government’s efforts to resolve it. While this is newsworthy, the coverage appears to be tied to a temporary controversy rather than sustained, independent coverage of the university’s broader significance, achievements, or impact.

The Siasat article only provides small overview of the university which is trivial and includes a quotation from the university’s counselor, offering no in-depth coverage. The Deccan Chronicle article is merely a passing mention, filled with quotations from WP:PRIMARY peoples, and mentioning the university just once. Can these really make the subject pass GNG/NCORP? GrabUp - Talk 14:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Well for TOI, with WP:RS, individual articles from TOI should be assessed based on their context and depth, the given article provides coverage of the university's relocation issues, can still count towards GNG. It’s the quality of coverage, not the general reputation, that matters for each source (plus, has a byline). Passes WP:SUBSTANTIAL. The Hindu article, the controversy is central to the university's identity and so passes WP:SUBSTANTIAL as well. For Siasat and Deccan Chronicle (no byline), are beyond trivial, both sources contribute to the cumulative notability.

Serious controversies, collaborations, and other newsworthy events, which reflect the university’s impact and role in the community together form a solid basis for passing GNG. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment:@User:Mims Mentor

TOI: Even if I agree, the TOI article is also WP:TRIVIAL, as the source starts by stating: Students enrolled at Guru Nanak University (GNU) are expressing dissatisfaction with the state government’s decision to relocate them to other colleges. They are worried that they might be transferred to smaller colleges lacking adequate facilities and placement opportunities. The students are demanding that if the government cannot accommodate them in top-tier colleges, GNU should return their certificates and issue apology letters for hindering their academic progress. Additionally, they are seeking compensation of ₹10 lakh per student. This is the only content the TOI source provides, after which it shifts to quoting parents and students, which is irrelevant. The article does not provide any in-depth coverage of the university; it merely reports the concerns expressed by students. Therefore, this article fails to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUBSTANTIAL.
The Hindu: It does not provide any in-depth coverage of the university. It mainly discusses the issue of "illegal" admissions and the government’s efforts to resolve it. The article discusses : 3,000 students admitted to Sreenidhi University and Guru Nanak University without state government approval are now facing uncertainty about their academic future. Despite conducting classes, the institutions were unable to hold exams due to the lack of official permission. The Telangana government, after realizing the issue, has decided to transfer these students to other private universities or colleges. However, there are several challenges, including ensuring students' academic continuity and addressing concerns about course preferences and academic delays. The article does not provide any in-depth coverage of the university itself, but only the incident. This article may contribute to notability for a page about the incident, but not for the university, as it does not provide significant coverage of the institution. Additionally, this is just one article with limited depth, so it cannot make the university pass NCORP. It fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUBSTANTIAL.
The Siasat: The source just mentions: Guru Nanak Institutions, which was recently granted “university” status by the Telangana government, has introduced undergraduate, postgraduate, and Ph.D. programs in Engineering, Life Sciences, Arts, Homeopathy, Agriculture, Hospitality, and other departments. The university, located in the state of Telangana, is paving its way to provide industry-ready students with a greater focus on industry-aligned courses and joint degree programs in association with the industry, located at Ibrahimpatnam on a sprawling 60-acre campus. After this, the article starts to quote Chancellor Gagandeep Singh Kohli, which is irrelevant. This is just a small overview or simply WP:TRIVIAL coverage of the university. It does not contribute towards GNG because it is not in-depth coverage, and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUBSTANTIAL.
Deccan Chronicle: This article is more like a mouthpiece for the university and not at all independent. It starts by saying: Guru Nanak University (GNU) Chancellor Sardar Gagandeep Singh Kohli said industry-academia collaboration was the key to propelling the university into the ranks of India’s top educational institutions. Speaking at the HR conclave, ‘Preparing the workforce for the future’, Kohli revealed that GNU was actively incorporating industry feedback to adapt its curriculum to the demands of the modern world. The article consists mainly of quotations, with no independent journalism involved. I suspect it to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:SPONSORED.
These sources can't really make the university notable. The Hindu article provides coverage about the issue of illegal admissions but doesn't offer any insight into the university itself. Even if I agree that it meets WP:SIGCOV, there is only one source, and to meet WP:NCORP, multiple sources are required, which are not present here. So, the article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - it appears to be a properly accredited and independent degree-awarding institution, and although online sources are not great, we generally accept that offline sources likely exist to meet the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

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

One of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Lean keep, but rename Ilkhanid campaign in Bithynia. A real event. See here. Also mentioned here but without a date. I've added two links from articles that refer to it (and have for years). Srnec (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I am having a difficult time finding the relevant portions of the sources linked above, but even if two or three sources vaguely mentioned such a campaign (which could also be part of a more major campaign in western Anatolia), this doesn't appear wikinoteworthy, especially given the lack of long-term significance as this was around the time of the relatively obscure beginnings of the Ottoman dynasty. Unless an eye-opening quantity of sources cover this "specific" campaign in depth I fail to see why this should be kept. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, with no prejudice against recreation. I think WP:TNT is warranted here, given that the author is banned for hoaxes and this is not a terribly readable or informative stub. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Basketball at the 1997 Summer Universiade

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingston International School (Hong Kong)

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

Named international school, there are no sources in both local and foreign media. This article serves only to promote the school. Searched for secondary, independent reliable sources but nothing was found Mekomo (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hong Kong. Mekomo (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Kowloon Tong#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Md. Wasim Akram

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 04:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 04:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hasan Mehedi

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 04:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 04:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I checked but couldn't find any news about the subject beyond their death. It appears to be a clear case of a single-event notability issue. The subject does not seem to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Shahariar Khan Aanas

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

I don’t see the WP:GNG being met here. The cited sources only discuss their letter before death in the Bangladeshi movement, with no significant coverage found. This article seems similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and a merge to List of people who died in the July massacre might be a better option. GrabUp - Talk 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Md. Akram Hossain

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

I do not see any SIGCOV coverage in the cited sources. I have checked every source cited in the article and found that they consist of passing mentions, press releases, and interviews, which do not count toward notability. Some sources have simply copy-pasted the same article about his US selection, which could be paid content or a press release. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 03:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 03:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

New Tokushima Broadcasting

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Planned TV station that never existed. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Holding space

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

The article is extremely brief at four sentences; and while I can at least appreciate the addition of citations to the page, I feel that this article does not have enough substance to... hold space in Wikipedia's mainspace. The article appears to be a violator of both WP:TABLOID and WP:RECENT, and I am not convinced that the "holding space" phrase has any present notability independent to the Wicked media tour and subsequent coverage. If the phrase can end up having its own unique notability outside of temporary tabloids and "meme culture", and can endure in the public conscience, then maybe it could have its own page. Even then, it may possibly fit better with Wiktionary... but that must require that the phrase has a serious definition in the first place, in spite of two of the article's sentences (reminder: half of all the article's sentences) are dedicated to explaining how unclear the phrase's definition is. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: The article shows no evidence for why this would be a notable topic worthy of an article. The article itself even states that "No one seems to fully understand what any of this actually means", so why does it have its own article? —Mjks28 (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep - While the phrase was popularized because of the interview for Wicked and it's big uptick as embraced by the community, the phrase itself actually is not new and the meaning as explained by this article in psychology today from 2023, and from a quick web search, the term appears to be commonly used in psychology. This also fits the explained meaning of the journalist as explained in the NYTimes article about the wicked interview that the movie and music is "holding space" in a special time right now for the LGBTQ community that is often othered, just as the character Elphaba is in the movie.

So definitely passes notability, even outside the current use in the Wicked context, the fact that the article was created as a stub, does not mean it's not notable and this was just a quick 5 minute research from me, so it looks like this nomination is failing WP:BEFORE, so let's expand the article content and this AfD should become redundant quickly. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, adopted article, added Psychology origin from 2015, which as already mentioned above, matches the explanation of the journalist that the phrase basically means to create a safe space for community. Suggesting WP:HEY is applicable here. Raladic (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to safe space? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per GNG and HEY, thanks to Raladic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per GNG. The Wicked film's article now brings up the interview that made the phrase viral. HM2021 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The strongest case for deletion would be that this violates no neologisms. Since the buren of proof is on the nominator, I think they should form an argument that this is a newly formed word, term, or phrase that has achieved popular or institutional recognition and is becoming accepted into mainstream language, from the definitional lede at neologism. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Despite the efforts to provide sourcing, I see very little here. Indeed, one of the sources/quotes used in the expansion very effectively argues for deletion by its very nature: Glamour said, "No one seems to fully understand what any of this actually means — or, for that matter, if it means anything at all. Indeed, that's kind of the beauty of it."[9] Even the majority of this skimpy article spends more time trying to explain usage of the term and its spread, rather than any sort of actual concept, an especially difficult task in light of the quote here. There's just nothing here. If it becomes some sort of agreed-upon concept, then it may be worthy of an article, but it's way WP:TOOSOON for one now (maybe forever). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. It's too soon. Popcornfud (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Serie A broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability of this topic has not changed since the last AFD 6-7 months ago. It still falls foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would support WP:SALTing this to prevent another re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Italy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Not deemed to have standalone notability here (straight lift from itwiki which can set their own inclusion standards) and already deleted recently only to re-appear due to the page title being 'freed'. Crowsus (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's important to note that it's not a direct recreation. There was a request for speedy deletion which was denied by Asilvering saying decline WP:G4, text greatly expanded from deleted version, no longer just a list, would need new discussion. Therefore the recreation isn't due to the page title being 'freed', but rather the creator would seem to think the expansion is enough for it to be notable enough to stand currently (also see what Claudio Fernag wrote on the talk page: This page should not be speedily deleted because the article is no substantially identical to the deleted version. The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters like when it was deleted, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. The same happened with the article List of La Liga broadcasters, which at first was just a table with a list of broadcasters. It was nominated for deletion, more information was added to give it more notability and it was finally kept). --SuperJew (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  Fair enough, but to be fair I couldn't see the original version for comparison. Crowsus (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete and SALT I also agree with nomination, I feel this is not the right type of material we should be having on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: but rename to "Serie A in media", "Serie A broadcasting", "Serie A on television" or similar, not opposed to Draftify until quality concerns are met. Strongly opposed to salting. The article is not in a great state and is clearly based on / inspired by the it:wiki article which is IMO in need of some editing to trim it down. Nonetheless, the notability is clearly there, and this should be the "expansion/detailed article" corresponding to the TV rights section of the Serie A article. There is repeated coverage of TV rights negotiations, impacts on viewers and commentary on current status of TV rights in the main Italian newspapers of record (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). There is more specialized work to analyze the landscape in niche publications / sources (which should naturally be reviewed to ensure they pass RS), such as 6, 7 (also independently published as a book, which may be better for referencing), 8, 9, 10 (appears to be a very good source, published by Taylor & Francis), 11... Research papers on this topic also exist, however I don't know if they meet our quality requirements: 12 and 13 published when Serie A TV rights were being renewed in 2005, 14, 15, 16... As well as theses (again, to check if RS is met): 17, 18. Shazback (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep am I missing something? This isn't the same article, and it seems to clearly pass WP:GNG with those Italian language articles above. We don't gatekeep if something is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE clearly does not apply here, which is for upcoming shows on specific networks. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
They don't look like WP:SUSTAINED coverage to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
There are sources already in the article that span 20 years of coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

What would be sufficient for WP:SUSTAINED? In 1995, half-page on page 4 of La Stampa regarding the TV rights sales of Serie A and B La Stampa 31 Oct. 1995 p.4, 2010 editorial article and analysis in La Repubblica on how TV rights sales affect the league to optimize commercial revenues La Repubblica 3 Mar. 2010 online, unknown if published... See the links above in addition... What type of sources would satisfy this aspect of the notability guideline? Shazback (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to GiantSnowman, IgnatiusofLondon, TimothyBlue, SpacedFarmer as they participated in the previous AfD. Shazback (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - article appears impressive, but is very poorly written and sourcing is inadequate to show notability of this topic. Giant Snowman 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Poor writing should be improved, not deleted. Regarding the sourcing, can you expand as two editors above have explained in detail how there is enough sourcing. --SuperJew (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Serie A#Television rights – No need for a fork, as decided in similar AfD in the past. If there is relevant content, simply add it to this section. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep Although the article can be improved, it is notable enough as shown by editors above and shouldn't be deleted. Summarising and merging is a possible alternative, though it seems to me that there is enough content for a standalone page. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding: (1) the extant state of sourcing; and (2) if renaming as an alternative to deletion would be suitable; would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Small Talk (EP)

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

A user recreated this page two months after it was redirected by Donaldd23 in September 2024 and said "Putting this through AfD is better than just redirecting it." Well, here's putting it through AfD. MNEK's first EP is simply not notable. I can't find any usable reviews or news sources on this really, and it didn't chart, even if a few of its included singles did. Total fail of WP:NALBUMS in all senses. Ss112 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
DELETE, fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to MNEK per above. Redirect is preferred AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the proposed redirect would be helpful in attaining a more clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of everything

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, specifically the part about Wikipedia not being a phrasebook. The article does not present an explanation about the context of the phrase, also leading it to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sources appear to not be about the phrase itself, but using it, leading to concerns the article is WP:SYNTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Social science. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. The article reads more like an essay, and is confused about its scope. Is it about the phrase, or the idea? DICDEF does say: In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. The sources include a Yale University Press book, but with the other sources being editorials and marginally related think pieces, I don't think it passes GNG. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [37], [38] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [39]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Both articles have the same (2 out of 3) authors. If the organization still existed we could see if these folks "happen" to be directly associated with it. Also, the second one is really poor in content - reads like an undergraduate paper, really. I'm not willing to see these as significant. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. As there have been no new comments after either of the two relists, and there was no consensus prior to the first relist, there is no consensus now. There is no prejudice against speedy renomination, should additional arguments and/or source analyses be presented therein. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag me in the below discussion so i can get my quickest reponse possible out to you.

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle. Additionally no passenger or exterior fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep - per my comments at the 1st AfD discussion, a mere 2 months ago. A second AfD is not justified at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per criteria 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Oppose a speedy close. This was a minor accident with zero fatalities and only two people with minor injuries. There is nothing encyclopedic about this event. We need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple kinds of sources to prove long-term significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FYI We've had bus and plane crashes with multiple deaths get deleted in the past for this reason. Many vehicular accidents of all kinds happen every day around the world. We don't include them unless they have lasting significance that is not WP:ROUTINE news coverage immediately after the event.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

um… That fallacy doesn’t apply here. I’m not pointing at other existing articles. How does this article meet WP:EVENTCRIT?4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - No fatalities, yes, but this does appear to have been a case of a scheduled airline flight that resulted in the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Um… that is not a policy based argument under any notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

...the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. This consensus is an informal WP:AV tradition that's not firmly backed by any actual notability guideline, and there's a distinct tendency towards WP:RECENTISM in its use. I think we need to move away from it. Carguychris (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Carguychris Nonsense. WP:AV is a WikiProject. It doesn't have the power to establish policy nor record community consensus opinions at AFD. We have a page for recognized WP:COMMONOUTCOMES and WP:SNGs to record policy backed WP:CONSENSUS notability opinions that are allowed to be used at AFD. Vaguely waving to a small WikiProject doesn't set the precedent you think it does. There is no established consensus for loss of hull accidents at AFD. And frankly if WP:AV wants to push that they need to go through an WP:RFC like all the other COMMONOUTCOMES entries/SNGs have done before it carries any weight. That means going through the formal community vetting process and getting that formally written into a notability or deletion guideline page. Only then can a credible claim of a community consensus guideline be made. My guess is any RFC of this nature would fail easily and rapidly, as the community as a whole has widely supported WP:EVENTCRIT and its application to accidents of any kind. 4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Reread my post. I'm agreeing with you! I think we need to move away from it—"it" being this informal, groundless notion within WP:AV that any hull loss of a large, modern airliner is somehow automatically notable enough for a standalone article. Yes, such events inevitably attract news coverage, but as Aviationwikiflight correctly points out below, arguing notability using only day-after news coverage and the inevitable, statutorily-required government incident report flies in the face of WP:EVENTCRIT #4, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. Carguychris (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Got you. Sorry I reversed what you said somehow. lol The whole green text thing threw me off. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance since none of the sources I've found had in-depth coverage of the event since the said coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what was contained in the final report without any analysis. Alternatively, a merge to Caspian Airlines#Accidents and incidents is also a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Mahshahr Airport and Caspian Airlines as appropriate. Per nom and Aviationwikiflight, this accident lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. Carguychris (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep Event had in depth coverage worldwide by independent sources and has a WP:lasting effect with improved safety regulations so an accident like this can be prevented in the future, including 9 safety recommendations (three to the Iran Civil Aviation Organization, four to Caspian Airlines one to Mahshahr Airport and IRI aerodrome). So article meeting all aspects of WP:Event. 38.87.93.147 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)— 38.87.93.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Issuing recommendations after an aviation accident is common practice so whether or not an event had lasting effects needs to be demonstrated. Whilst there was coverage of the aftermath of the event, there doesn't seem to be any significant or in-depth coverage of what happened to the flight and how. Additionally, the lack of continued coverage in secondary sources that also provide significant and in-depth coverage of the event seems to be completely lacking, so this event doesn't meet all aspects of WP:N(E). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please examine whether the coverage in RS justifies a standalone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Karma - When Destiny Strikes Back

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

No sources meeting WP:SIGCOV or even minimally satisfying WP:NFSOURCES have been found, fails WP:GNG. The provided sources offer only trivial mentions of the movie. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Odisha. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Anubhav_Mohanty#Filmography: or to List of Odia films of 2024 (but the latter does not exist yet (although it would be useful; see category; and the first mentions the film) (https://www.mycitylinks.in/ollywoods-dussehra-dhamaka-2024 ; https://www.orissapost.com/four-odia-flicks-to-clash-at-box-office/ for verification) -Mushy Yank. 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I have excluded the !vote from WikiMoob from consideration in coming to this evaluation, as comments from ban-evading sockpuppets are given no weight in these discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Vishnu Teja

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

Sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject; they only offer passing mentions and quotes, quotes are WP:PRIMARY and don’t contribute towards notability. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep: If there is any spamming, we will not reach this page here. If there is any deficiency in the citation, another editor will correct it.

~~If not, I would suggest moving this page to Draft, if only to give this page a chance to improve.WP:DRAFTIFY WikiMoob (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I’m opposed to draftifying this article because I see no potential for the subject in the future. I don’t think it will meet notability in the near future, but if it does, it can be recreated. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Priya Hassan

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

I created Draft:Priya Hassan and despite it being well sourced, it was rejected at AfC. Now a different user, recreated the draft topic but as an article albeit with barely any sources and only 1 reliable source. The draft was deleted but I requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. All of the sources on the draft were interviews mostly.

Unneccesary AfD, I put a PROD on the draft but creator removed it. Likely not notable as a director due to lack of wide spread non interview (primary) sources. If this article needs to be kept, it needs to be merged with the draft. The draft had many sources from here [40], many of which relate to the production of the films themselves, not her. DareshMohan (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: and merge the Draft into it (that was deleted at the time of creation. However, why was DareshMohan's draft rejected?). She meets WP:DIRECTOR in my view; the two films she directed seem notable enough. She does qualify for a page. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The only reasons I can think of was that the film Bindaas Hudugi wasn't linked in the draft, the film Jambada Hudugi itself is in dire need of more sources (and given its lowkey release, the 100 days claim seems doubtful [41]) and the lack of article for Smuggler despite having five sources. Bindaas Hudugi also running for hundred days is doubtful (in which and how many theaters? [42]). Main reason is all sources are about films and not about her itself, but to be fair she didn't do that many films. DareshMohan (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: suggest merging with Draft:Priya Hassan as the draft had better sources that seem to pass WP:NACTOR. --Shiv989 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Conventional weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: this is a sharply-distinct class of weapons, the subject of the treaties named in the article. As such the article is correctly about things, not the term used to name those things, as is proper for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Portable object (computing)

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

I'm really not sure about this one - it seems like it might be a dupe of Portable Distributed Objects, or could be merged into that article. It's also unclear if .po files are still used for this purpose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, or merge. Looking on Google Scholar, this seems to be a different concept than Portable Distributed Objects. The article could use some clarification for its uses, particularly for translation, but I see enough notability for it to stay. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is notable. 1250metersdeep (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Portable Distributed Objects: This source on the Portable Distributed Objects article refers to CORBA as a usage of "distributed objects": "Creating distributed applications is generally considered difficult. While object-oriented programming promises to make the task more tractable, many programmers still shudder when subjects such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, and OpenDoc arise. However, programming with distributed objects does not have to be difficult, if you start with the right foundation." Additionally, the nominated article lists CORBA as a model that enables usage of "portable distributed objects". This indicates to me that "portable distributed objects" and "portable objects" are terms that can be used interchangeably or are so similar in meaning that separate articles are more likely to cause confusion for readers. The concept of portable (distributed) objects may or may not be notable, but that misses the point of this AfD, which is to discuss whether these two pages discuss the same concept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete this is a DICTDEF, and a excessively-specific (and obsolete) definition at that. The only source is a 2006 patent. gettext is the article about .po files, the .po redirect should be retargeted there. I don't think a DAB page for Remote direct memory access and a half-dozen similar terms is justified. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Portable Distributed Objects: I agree that this page and Portable Distributed Objects more or less refer to the same thing and should be merged. BJackJS talk 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes aren't really citing any particular coverage specifically enough, but I don't see a consensus here yet between merge and delete. More discussion on sourcing and/or merge targets would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

McCoy's Building Supply

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [43]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [52] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a band new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hardoi

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2018, only sources provided are primary. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Naf War

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:MILNG, not enough significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Garudam ^Talk! 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pivot (American band)

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

This is a stub article on a North Carolina band that has been unreferenced for many years. In a before search I have been unable to determine any evidence to show the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but unless something turns up, Pivot does not appear to meet notability guidelines. ResonantDis_tortion 00:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and North Carolina. ResonantDis_tortion 00:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I can only find one item about a similar band [53], nothing for this band. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Any sources about "Pivot" only talk about a separate band with the same name, but not this North Carolina one. Beachweak (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, no references and a Google search yields no results. Fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleine961 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

[1] Asri, Suliati (2021-09-27). "Tingkat fokus pelajar". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[2] Osman, Hamzah (2021-07-01). "Nota ringkas bantu Mohamad Hafiz cemerlang STPM". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[3] Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-05). "'Mahsuri' dapat 10A". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[4] Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Pulut kuning untuk pelajar cemerlang [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Archived from the original on 2017-03-20. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[5] Osman, Hamzah (2020-03-22). "Projek mulia Geng Cikgu, rakan-rakan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[6] Osman, Hamzah (2020-02-02). "Bertuahnya kamu dik [METROTV]". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[7] Osman, Hamzah (2019-03-16). "Cuma lima saat..." Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[8] Osman, Hamzah (2017-11-07). "Tahan sakit jawab soalan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[9] Osman, Hamzah (2017-08-20). "i-Muamalat Mobile beri kemudahan 500,000 pelanggan". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[10] Osman, Hamzah (2017-03-16). "Ikhlas jadi pendidik". Berita Harian. Retrieved 2024-11-29.

[l042-11] Today, Telangana (11 August 2024). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University organises HR Conclave on 'Preparing the Workforce for the Future'". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[h258-12] "Guru Nanak University Focuses on Industry-Academia Collaboration for Top Ranking". Deccan Chronicle. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[c980-13] Reddy, R. Ravikanth (3 July 2023). "Govt. faces challenges in shifting "Illegally" admitted students in Guru Nanak and Sreenidhi Universities". The Hindu. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[l750-14] Vatyam, Nirupa (10 July 2023). "Guru Nanak Students Fight Back: Refuse Relocation, Seek Compensation & Apology". The Times of India. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[o837-15] Today, Telangana (8 July 2023). "Hyderabad: Huge relief for Guru Nanak University, Sreenidhi University students". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[l197-16] The Hans India (27 April 2023). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University students take to streets, seek recognition". Andhra Pradesh Breaking News, Telangana News, Hyderabad News Updates, National News, Breaking News. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[m705-17] Phaniharan, VRC (18 May 2023). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University makes tall claims on study courses". Andhra Pradesh Breaking News, Telangana News, Hyderabad News Updates, National News, Breaking News. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[q626-18] Today, Telangana (4 September 2022). "Hyderabad: Guru Nanak University holds HR Conclave". Telangana Today. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[r444-19] Chotrani, Ratna (29 August 2022). "Telangana: Guru Nanak Institutions granted university status". The Siasat Daily. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[r302-20] "Top 15 Private Technical Universities". Outlook India. 2 August 2024. Retrieved 29 November 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]