User:CAPTAIN RAJU/AFD

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 02	November 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Malik Jamroz Khan

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

No reliable sources cited. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lack of sources noted since 2009 without improvement. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Piracy In Gujarat

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

I am not sure this page should be Keep or Deleted, So thats why I placed AFD tag. Camilear (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Piracy and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment — @Camilear: Have a look at this. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin, Oh look like sock, Please do the investigation and if he is sock then block it. Camilear (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin, this sock is just moving the pages which are created by IP, from draft to main spaces, here is the another move Nana Farari did by User:Chhello bhai, Thanks. Camilear (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, from my experience of interactions with this sock farm, they tend to create drafts using IPs and move them to mainspace using their socks later. WP:GAMING at best. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 3 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.

Derk Telnekes

(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) 12:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ryan de Vreede

(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) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Lagos State Model College Badore

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

Non-notable school. The only source (the second's link is dead) is the school's own website, and I found very little reliable sources with significant coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Kurt van de Rijck

(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) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Worsley

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. At best, minor notability for an incident involving Michael van Gerwen but nothing else. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Mike Zuydwijk

(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) 12:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ireland–Zambia relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. A year later someone reverts this redirect with no improvement to article. These relations still fail GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect and salt. Per previous AfD, as nothing has changed. Yilloslime (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Short article, but has sources that may have it meet requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Please see 1st AfD...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Aleksei Kulashko

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

Article subject has very little notability. No SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nerkin

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

This is little more than an Armenian dictionary definition. A soft redirect to the Wikitionary entry for ներքին would seem appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Chandrashekar Bandiyappa

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

Procedural nomination. Contested Jimfbleak's WP:G11 deletion and reverted to a non-promotional revision. Potentially meets WP:DIRECTOR through his filmography. I would !vote weak keep, but I have no real opinion as I have not investigated this topic in any great detail. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with 3 notable films that received critical attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Passes WP:NFILMMAKER where all his films got multiple reviews in reliable sources. This page still needs lot of improvement made with better sources and more coverage on the career. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Beauxbatons

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

This page has similar coverage and notability as other locations in the Harry Potter series, notably the Durmstrang academy as both locations have the same role in the series as schools in the triwizard tournament in the 4th harry potter book, which does not have its own article.

The references in the current article are currently two top 10 trivia lists from screenrant, an article written by JK Rowling herself about the school and other articles that talk about Beauxbatons along with other locations in the series with similar depth and focus.

Based on this with the WP:GNG guidelines I don't believe Beauxbatons has significant independent coverage to warrant its own article, and it should be merged with Places in Harry Potter with other locations in the series that have similar coverage. Mousymouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge makes sense to me, the best sources in the article aren’t actually about Beauxbatons exclusively, but about analysis of larger themes in the text, and I think the value of those citations could be preserved on the Places in Harry Potter page, or a section of another article dealing with analysis of themes around national identity and ethnicity in HP. penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per Penultimate supper. Based on WP:GNG, this doesn't have significant coverage to warrant an article. But there is a valid WP:ATD and merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep It is specifically not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source. What is relevant is if the secondary sources can provide enough material for a full article. Now the source by Flotmann, as well as others like Muggles, Monsters and Magicians, Creating Magical Worlds and "Harry Potter – National Hero and National Heroic Epic" all have commentary which goes significantly beyond a mention in passing, and can provide more material for an article which, as it is now, already goes beyond a stub. "A Postmodernistic Look at the Harry Potter Series" additionally has a much shorter, but non-trivial observation which I did not see in the other sources. The same is most likely true for Durmstrang. So both topics in my view fullfill WP:GNG. All that said, much coverage is done in direct comparison of Durmstrang and Beauxbaton. So while I think both could easily have their own article, I am also fine with them being covered in extended sections, or maybe even a combined section, at Places in Harry Potter. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

And like Penultimate supper stated, the analysis deals with themes around national identity and ethnicity in Harry Potter. So if there was and article about that, that might be a good place to cover both, and that might be a more encyclopedic approach than the list of locations, but I don't know of such an article so far. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Per sources discovered by Daranios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Humiston family murders

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

Tragic, but fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. If in future this somehow is covered in depth long term we can recreate it. CoconutOctopus talk 09:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete familicides very rarely fulfill NEVENT, and when they do it's usually obvious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete already a page Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've merged that obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment If there is other family murder pages, why delete this? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bloxzge 025 Because some incidents do end up being notable, through being analyzed or retrospected upon. Familicides are just less likely to get that kind of coverage, on account of the fact that they are by far the most common type of mass murder and tend to be fairly similar. Unless there's an obvious reason that they stick out it's best to wait until they prove notable and not make the article until that point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Change to keep, as I only voted delete per there already being a page and since other family murders with even lower deaths, etc. such as an earlier one this year still have an article. I would only vote delete if no new information comes out or coverage stops. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Number of victims is irrelevant in determining notability; the crossbow case you link is certainly notable as it was covered in depth and continually in the media (especially as the victims were the family of a media personality). I do not believe this article is notable and that it fails WP:TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. CoconutOctopus talk 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

This event litteraly just happened and more information is still coming out, and you still want to delete it? I would say give it a while before you delete it Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify until such time as the courts make a decision about whether this is a murder or not and decide to convict anyone for the deaths, or not. Without a conviction, Wikipedia should not even call this a murder as the accused should be presumed innocent. There is also a redirect that should be included in this discussion and treated the same way. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify or Delete I agree with CoconutOctopus's reasoning. Peaceray (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not even have a Wikidata item! Peaceray (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, this is a major news item and rather compelling evidence (the 11-year-old's testimony, clear forensic evidence) that the 15-year-old boy committed the murders. Additionally, the WP:NOTNEWS argument fails quickly with a search for "Humiston family murders" or any other related term. Phoenixskies (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not that the topic itself is not a news item (which it absolutely is). Also, regardless of how compelling the evidence is, we can't state someone is responsible for a murder until they are actually found guilty by a court of law. CoconutOctopus talk 13:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, I misread the policy. The page invariably refers to the 15-year-old as "the accused" instead of "the murderer," though. Phoenixskies (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, It’s definitely a developing story, but I wouldn’t say it violates WP:TOOSOON. This policy says, “Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources.” This story is verified by multiple independent sources, and none of the claims are any that are unverified. For example, the 15-year-old is not described as being guilty but of being accused of the crime. Brittanyktanner (talk) Brittanyktanner (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources are secondary, they are all WP:PRIMARYNEWS. So this does not pass the GNG, and it does not have any of the things on NEVENT that would justify waiting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. See List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 for a multitude of other familicides with similar numbers of victims. An incident of familicide being picked up by national news organizations does not necessarily make it noteworthy enough to be an article. Raskuly (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Osvaldinho (footballer, born 1945)

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

No sign of notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep – There are some online sources [1], [2], and considering the period and number of matches, there must be more offline. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't really enough to meet WP:GNG and arguing WP:TMBS here feels pretty weak, especially since one of the sources is somebody's substack. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
For players from the 60s-80s in major European leagues, it is inevitable that there is nothing in local newspapers and compendiums. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Inevitable that there is something, probably? Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Show some WP:COMMONSENSE. 200+ apps for Vitoria, a major club. Giant Snowman 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep I believe this is a valid WP:STUB article, for some reason, some editors don't believe in stub articles anymore. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "There must be sources somewhere" is not a valid argument. WP:V requires that sources are found and cited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The Seafood Bar

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

This is a minor chain of restaurants that fails to meet WP:NCORP. There are some restaurant reviews online, but no WP:SIGCOV, no evidence of awards won, or similar notable coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Their website has a press section[3] which includes a detailed Guardian review and a link to a paywalled Financial Times review which I'm unable to judge the value of. It's got mentions in the London Evening Standard[4] and Amsterdam Mag/Amsterdam Now[5] but not in depth. Coverage in The Caterer magazine[6], a long-running publication. The generic name makes searching harder. I'm unable to check Dutch-language sources, but the lack of a page on Dutch-language WP is a red flag. But close to notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Links to The Guardian review [7] and Financial Times review [8]. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I am attaching more significant sources which are not included in the article, [9], [10], [11], [12]. In WP:PAYWALL, it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I believe that instead of completely rejecting those sources we should seek help from Resource Exchange. - Snubvane (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. THREE articles in het Eindhovens Dagblad and TWO articles in Het Parool count pull this chain well over the NCORP bar. The TWO British reviews also count toward notability—one of these apparently. The GNG is met in a heartbeat. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Could you add those articles as suitable references? I'm not a Dutch speaker, so can't do it myself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

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

The significance of the award has not been demonstrated separately from Slavyansky Bazar. There are no independent authoritative references.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any notable coverage of their work in news media either. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

His work is every where(books, lectures, articles). It is on Jstor, Google scholar, Google Books, Print like The Guardian has mentioned him. He is writing on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet This is his google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oAEdHDkAAAAJ&hl=en

This his Jstor search result: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Alex+Taek-Gwang+Lee&so=rel

He has edited a book with Salvoz Zizek https://www.versobooks.com/products/196-the-idea-of-communism-3?srsltid=AfmBOoqosEfP3Y6T5G2tDhErrlHwpEeUJFbFSsTUrhNnnkZoF9LoIJWV

He is extensively writings on French and German Philosophy and Korean Culture. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Texas challenge flag

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

It would appear to me this is a neologism. The article lacks references, and with the required WP:BEFORE done, that would seem to be because it is a new term that is without attestation in reliable sources. A move to a notional Draft:Texas challenge flag considered, but I doubt in would, at least in the near future - let's say by 2025 - be accepted. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the title is bad but the incidents are verifiable and the reliable sources are connecting those incidents as being related (to the idea that since the game has to stop if objects are thrown on the field, fans are doing such throwing because they disagree with officials/referees' calls). [I am the article creator] (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Luka Kuprashvili

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

Apparent memorial page for a local commander of a rebellion. According to the article it relies largely on archival (primary) sources. There may be better sources in Georgian that I can’t search for, but the Georgian and Russian Wikipedia articles are based on the same sources as this. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Georgia (country), and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

MIST (satellite)

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

Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Kang Da-bin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and South Korea. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles in the main cast of notable productions; roles in the main cast can be considered significant; so that I consider deletion unnecessary. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Dal Soon's Spring and Unpredictable Family. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Cubes Entertainments

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

Non notable film production company. Fails WP:NCORP.There are no reliable independent multiple sources available as well. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:53, 3 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Molecular Pilot 06:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ville Laihiala

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

Not notable. Only sources are social media, blogs and Imdb Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator The Finnish Wikipedia article has sources Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:51, 3 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.

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shahram Pourassad

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

BLP lacking any proper sourcing, cut and pasted from draft. I wanted to draftify it but the draft still exists. Does not belong in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Urdu 1

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

Tagged for notability in hopes of improvement but tag removed. A WP:BEFORE does not find significant coverage discussing the list as a whole so fails WP:NLIST. Would recommend merging the content to Urdu 1 but not finding significant coverage for the channel either. Looking at some of the programs listed, I believe a lot will fail notability as well. Searching for ("amanat" + "Urdu 1") finds nothing on Gnews, and only sources such as YouTube and social media in regular Google. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Might need cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that you are again citing MOS and not a GUIDELINE. We could create many lists on many topics if we simply use MOS. Can you point out the sources that discuss the list as a group which is a requirement of WP:NLIST?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Again"? I am going to try in capital letters, myself, maybe then :D. "AGAIN"? WP:NLIST IS A GUIDELINE. IT IS A GUIDELINE. A. GUIDELINE. A. NOTABILITY. GUIDELINE. And please JUST. READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. (all the words). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you linked here, which is a Manual of Style guideline. It is NOT a notability guideline. You cite this and WP:SPLITLIST in other AfDs as if they somehow superseded notability guidelines. You missed the part in NLIST (or selectively decided to ignore) where it says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I will ask as I have in other AfDs...can you show the significant coverage where the list is discussed in a grouping? As far as your tone, I would ask that you act a little more WP:CIVIL as its not acceptable conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

d-just re-read my !vote "again" and my comment below if you're interested. "i" did not "link" anything that the guideline does not include: the link is included in the original text of the guideline, which is what I quoted: the guideline, which is a guideline (and not not-a-guideline) itself quotes mos to define what the criterion for this particular case is; check the original. other cases exist, other possibilities, other !votes, other parts of other texts, other afds but my present !vote is based on that particular part and i did not quote splitlist here, did I? "still" is the key-word in the sentence that just follows the one from the guideline that i quote. implying that someone has "selectively decided to ignore" something is not exactly a great example of assuming good faith. mentioning that someone does something "again" at afd is also not completely necessary, especially as similar cases imply similar arguments. referring to arguments or outcomes in/of other afds can be helpful to help discussion progress if similar cases offered interesting elements, not to more or less explicitly cast a cloud on contributors with general but vague ad hominem remarks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Urdu 1: I think there is not need for a separate programming page when the contents can be easily merged back into channel page. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand the suggestion to merge seems to make sense, if other users think size and navigation are not an issue, the page about the network being indeed short. But I think the organisation in similar categories (List(s) of programs broadcast by XXX) is very helpful and clear for the reader. For example List of programs broadcast by Hum TV was AfDed and redirected/merged back...and now it does not appear anymore under the category, so that the reader has been deprived of a simple and powerful tool that helps navigate clearly between networks, in my humble opinion. So unless we can leave the category on the page, a merge seems detrimental to navigation (Hence my !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete We don't keep lists without proper sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Urdu 1: Fails WP:NLIST and this is an unneeded CFORK. Much of the content in fact violates NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you checked the redirect target? I know the sources on the page are poor but only did a brief WP:BEFORE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, I agree the sourcing on the target Urdu 1 is poor, but whether it meets WP:N is a separate issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FI, coverage on the subject of the list as set includes various paragraphs on the very programming of the network in: Sulehria, F. (2018). Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan. Taylor & Francis.; Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, p. 207 (on the prominence of Turkish series in the programming of U1). Adding them to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep almost all entries have their separate Wikipedia pages.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment You do know we require sourcing for all articles, right? Just because it has an article doesn't make it notable here without proper sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

They were told about WP:ATA a little over a week ago. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Robbie Widdows

(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) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Simon Whatley

(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) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Landers (darts player)

(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) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shaun Carroll

(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) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as only mentions are in automated databases with name, age, games won/lost i.e. [13] and [14]. There's a single article with his name [15] that literally just says "A team won this award. The members where... [others names] and [his name]". This is a passing mention and WP:NINI from the award. Thus, no WP:SIGCOV meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:GNG. MolecularPilot 09:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Adding that the "news" article is a WP:PRSOURCE and can't prove notability. also this "award" (if you can call it that) was only between 13 non professional teams with no coverage outside of WP:PRSOURCEs from the bar chain running it. Molecular Pilot 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Paul Watton

(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) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT per nom. Literally the only things I can find about him are database entries with "he played in (and most of the time lost) these matches" and limited biographical information like name, age etc. [16], [17]. No news or WP:SIGCOV whatsoever - no human besides the creator of the article has written something about him. Molecular Pilot 09:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

George Federico

(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) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:BEFORE (voting) search only revealed automated databases (that list most semi-professional darts players) that don't meet WP:SIGCOV - mainly with limited biographical info like name, age, matches played - see [18], [19], [20] etc. No news or other coverage thus doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT per "if they have SIGCOV, i.e. multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable (these have no evidence of editorial checking). Molecular Pilot 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Biemans

(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) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as again, after doing a WP:BEFORE (voting), all I can find him in are darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing, fixture) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. I would suggest all these darts articles be prod'ed but someone's been undoing all User:ItsKesha's prods with the same edit summary accusing them of not having done a WP:BEFORE and wanting to take it to AfD, so here we are I guess. I'll try to WP:BEFORE and !vote on as many as I can find time to. Molecular Pilot 06:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Luc Peters

(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) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [21] [22]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. Molecular Pilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Jamie Clark (darts player)

(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) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as I can only find him in darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:SPORTSCRIT. Molecular Pilot 06:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Amos Utuama

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, a scholar without a named chair, prestigious honors, or other apparent inclusion criteria.Pitille02 (talk) 05:08, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep: This is a ridiculous nomination. Passes WP:NPOL and I don’t need to explain that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep: This AFD is unwarranted. We should understand that deletion is not cleanup, and deletion should not be used as a substitute for improving article quality. The subject of this article meets the criteria in WP:NPOL as a fomer Deputy Governor of a state. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Passes WP:NPOL. He was Deputy Governor of Delta State. That's notability enough according to the criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bojong Kokosan

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

Entirely unsourced, WP:BEFORE search shows little to nothing, and the AfC is also unsourced but with more context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Indonesia, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep while it's very much stub-class at the moment, during my WP:BEFORE (voting) search I found this reference from the Indonesian Government Ministry of Education and Culture - [23] - that supports everything said in the article and more and is almost the most WP:RS source possible. As well as a news article from an Indonesian news website [24] and from a popular Indonesian online magazine about history [25] that's notable enough to have it's own id.wiki article [26]. Molecular Pilot 06:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Also another Indonesian news website with very clear editorial team and oversight (see the bottom of the article and also about pages) thus throughly meeting WP:NEWSORG, With all these sources talking about it extensively with whole, really long articles, and they all seem reliable (especially then government website), I strongly feel that this article meets WP:GNG. Note that I've added the government source as a reference in the article now. Molecular Pilot 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to link this "other" website! Sorry! https://tirto.id/sejarah-pertempuran-bojong-kokosan-penyebab-kronologi-dan-dampak-giPK Molecular Pilot 07:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep as per MolecularPilot's work. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Red Hood

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

I feel this is a tough AFD to navigate given the murkyness of comics (because comics are comics) the page fails WP:GNG. While Jason Todd is notable, and The Joker are notable, the "Red Hood" isnt. Most coverage of "Red Hood" is either coverage of Jason or the Joker or the Red Hood Gang, not Red Hood. The idea of Red Hood as a Legacy hero isn't really a thing in comics the way Robin or Batgirl is. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Why delete? The page clearly has some use. IMHO you could make fairly decent cases for a redirect to Jason Hood or the Joker (is that confirmed in whatever iteration of DC 'continuity' we're on this week? That he was the only version of the dome-head Red Hood?), so the most sensible thing would be a disambiguation-type page that swiftly explains the gist and links to the various appropriate pages. Outright deletion seems just about the worst option, so I'm voting Keep and make more useful through editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Kumaar

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Looking at the listed films, I cannot see where he is mentioned on some and the others I do find him in are not supported by the sources used. A WP:BEFORE finds no significant coverage. There is also some FAKEREFerences used such as those for the awards. The one he apparently won does NOT show the award won, only lists his name as a nomination. CNMall41 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. He is the lyricist of many songs and found some articles (reliable like Gaana, some aren't) [27] [28] [29]. Add citation needed to the award in question. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to support the award so a citation needed tag would not suffice. The other references are not reliable. The first is a redaction of what was posted on Instagram, the second is WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and the third is all quotes from the subject (it also shows a byline but posted by Odisha Diary Bureau which indicates it could be a paid placement - not assuming it is but not the strongest of sources). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [30] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [31] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [32] recital
4. [33] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Tennessee. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The Vanished (2005 film)

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

This article was PROD'd and de-PROD'd because no deletion rationale was provided. So, I thought I'd send this to AFD because it doesn't look like it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability for a film. It's been around for many years and I went through the page history, looking for a better version of the article but it doesn't exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Only current "references" are the offical website, and can't find any other sources referring to it (the 2005 film) besides mirror sites and user-generated content like IMDB. WP:NFILM mainly defers to WP:GNG and I can't find a single reference to the film that's significant, reliable or independent. Molecular Pilot 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

8 Clearwater Bay Road

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

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the

type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. "清水灣道8號擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.
  The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."
  The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."
2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).
  The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"
  From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."
3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.
  The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"
  From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."
4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.
  The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"
  From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."
5. "彩虹站新貴清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.
  The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"
  From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- yeah Keep the article Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Fram (crater)

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

Following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturaliste (crater) and Sleepy Hollow (Mars), this is not a notable impact feature. The crater is only 8 metres in diameter. According to estimates Mars has over 90 million craters that have over double the diameteter of this crater (see [34]), which probably puts the number of craters of this size in the hundreds of millions. There doesn't appear to be much interesting to be said about this crater either. I propose the article be redirect to either Opportunity (rover) or Timeline of Opportunity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Endurance crater cause there's a picture and mention of it in that section as it was discovered 4 days afterward the Endurance investigation missions (and the article is written chronologically). Can't find any indication of WP:SIGCOV in my search, only things are this article, an identical picture with identical description hosted on both the JPL, NASA and "the planetary society" websites, among other images with minimal descriptions across other image hosting websites - seems very WP:MILL per nom, no indication that it is has special significance beyond all those craters, of which many probably have images taken by the rover. Molecular Pilot 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Endurance crater, as there's a photo of the Fram crater in that section. Nothing really notable otherwise, and there's less than 10 results in the news tab when searching it up (via find sources). Most other results are just photos. Procyon117 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Andy's Records

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

Fails NCORP, notability concerns for over a decade, no references easily found on internet search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Was for some time the biggest independent record shop chain in the UK, a £30 million business with at one time 36 branches, and winning several industry awards. Coverage includes 'A love letter to Andy's Records where 90s kids in Cambridge spent far too much money', 'Andy's Records shops to close' and the British Newspaper Archive has several more articles about the company: 'Top Award for Andy's Records', Andy's Records Set to Break Into Brid', 'A Fourth Major Award For Andy's Records', 'Just for the Record, the Rest Is History: From Humble Market Stall to £30m Business, Andy's Is 30', 'Third retailing award for Andy's Records'. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep based on the sources found by @Michig, to which I would add that Graham Jones, Whatever Happened to Record Stores (2009) at 285 includes at least a paragraph on the founding of the article subject (but I'm not logged in to archive.org, and can't check if the text runs over onto other pages). Oblivy (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)