User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 12:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Negative keyword	20 days ago	1	6153	1834.8
Comilla Polytechnic Institute	18 days ago	2	8058	1587.65
Jhala Manna	19 days ago	3	7058	1576.94
SKANS School of Accountancy	18 days ago	4	5121	1487.3
Kepler-1047 c	13 days ago	1	4961	1346.33
Hut 33	12 days ago	0	1923	1335.94
Rugby School Japan	14 days ago	1	11656	1326.85
Giacomo Milano (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	1	3797	1326.56
Vampirefreaks.com	12 days ago	2	4971	1136.75
Sudbury Downtown Master Plan (2nd nomination)	10 days ago	1	5052	1108.48
Jms Brynt	10 days ago	1	3923	1108.15
Kevin Kade	11 days ago	2	4116	1101.49
Al Hadatha	10 days ago	1	4333	1098.6
Pomodorino di Manduria	11 days ago	2	4239	1089.1
Eitermillen	12 days ago	2	22688	1082.15
János Végső	11 days ago	3	4816	1042.28
Pál Székely	11 days ago	3	7562	1022.39
Hearth Party	10 days ago	2	4437	979.14
List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir	10 days ago	3	3753	976.95
Tulika Mehrotra	8 days ago	1	6012	961.49
Netta Schreiber	8 days ago	1	3052	956.53
Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)	10 days ago	2	7238	952.36
Ethics of simulated suffering	6 days ago	0	3180	894.82
English Young Liberals	6 days ago	0	4202	882.49
Biometric Consortium	7 days ago	1	3109	875.29

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [1] and Apple [2] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [3] [4] [5].

Book references are also forthcoming: [6] [7] [8] [9]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

how about both Add a section to keyword research and link to this (kept) article. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Book sources:

4 pages
2 pages
4 pages
4 pages
9 pages Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

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

The only independent reliable sources found are brief mentions within primary source news reports about broader events (e.g. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75355, https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/5enz43u7pl, etc.). Per WP:SIRS, primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. This title was previously redirected to the supervising Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but the redirect was removed by an editor without regard to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Worldbruce, non-profit and government-run schools don't have to comply with WP:SIRS. They only have to meet the GNG.

Also, did you check for sources in the Bengali language? Or in the local newspapers, such as the ones listed in Comilla#Media? When an article says that a secondary school is one of the oldest and largest of its type in its entire country, and that it has thousands of students, the failure to find sources usually turns out to say more about our limited search skills than the actual availability of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Nearly all of my editing is of Bangladesh-related topics, so I'm constantly searching in Bengali, but sometimes forget that not everyone will know that, and neglect to mention it explicitly in nominations. In addition to general searches in Bengali, I specifically searched three local news outlets that in my experience are reliable: amodbd, comillarkagoj and dailyamadercomilla.

My reading of WP:ORG is that all schools must comply with WP:SIRS or WP:GNG, so I agree with you in part. Although WP:ORG's second sentence says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, ...", its subsection WP:NSCHOOL says "All universities, colleges and schools, ... must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline." The subsection goes on to say that with respect to WP:ORG, for-profit educational institutions must in addition satisfy WP:COMMERCIAL. WP:SIRS is not part of the commercial requirements, but part of the top level "Primary criteria" section. WP:GNG doesn't spell it out as forcefully as WP:SIRS does, but says "'Sources' [used to establish notability] should be secondary sources ..." I can substitute that language for what I said about WP:SIRS in the nomination if you prefer, but the thrust of my argument remains the same.

It's true that Comilla Polytechnic Institute (1962) is one of the oldest government polytechnics in what is now Bangladesh, but the same can be said of the other 20 or so that were set up between 1955 and 1964. About 30 more have been established, I think all since 2000. Very little has been written about them individually, but some sources cover them collectively, so I believe a redirect to an article that treats them as a group is best. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The GNG doesn't "spell it out as forcefully" as SIRS because the GNG doesn't agree with SIRS. Secondary sources are not necessarily rare; a source that says CPI is "one of the oldest" is a secondary source (because it's comparing it against other schools, and comparison is a form of analysis, and analysis is the hallmark of a secondary source).

IMO some of the best sources for schools are government agency reports that cover multiple schools. A report that says something like these are bigger than those, these are cheaper than those, these require higher test scores than those, etc. would be perfect for getting a decent little encyclopedia article together for each of the schools in the report. (Neither CORP nor GNG require a source to be exclusively about the subject, though obviously the parts of a source that discuss only 'School 1' are not useful for determining whether 'School 2' is notable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No secondary sources to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The one Delete "vote" is from a globally blocked editor so additional arguments are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: There's nothing approaching reliable sources applied or found in a reasonable BEFORE. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete article without notability. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. After the source analysis in the nomination statement, any editors arguing to Keep have to counter this assessment of the sources or present ones they believe are reliable. Just saying they exist is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I largely concur with the source analysis above. These are passing mentions. BusterD (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

SKANS School of Accountancy

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

Non-notable for-profit accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gheus, did you search for sources in Arabic? Did you check the Pakistani newspapers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note that Pakistan is not an Arabic-speaking country, so asking me to do checks in Arabic is not ok. In Pakistani newspapers or magazines, I found this press release. This is a for-profit school and fails WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of accounting schools in Pakistan. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for the redirect as an ATD? Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, could not find any sources independent of it that are also not press releases. Fails WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable per GNG. Quick search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media etc. profiles, and more to the point this article has had more than a decade for better sources to be added, yet no one has, so I can only assume they don't exist. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Only seeing primary sources. The proposed redirect target (List of accounting schools in Pakistan) is also at AfD. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Kepler-1047 c

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

Non-notable exoplanet, the bibliographies of exoplanet.eu and NASA Exoplanet Archive only show database coverage about it. Fails WP:NASTRO. Might be redirected to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Question. I'm no expert on this topic, but is the following statement run-of-the-mill for exoplanets, or is it something exceptional: "The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star."? Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Athel cb, I have been through the references and surprised to see that none of them mentioned the text The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star. Also searched the web about that and realised that it's not something extraordinary. Meanwhile the NASA website stated about that Planet[10].––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just found more exoplanets with such info, TOI-2109b, Kepler-78b, K2-137b. Mentioned all could prove that the stated sentence about that specific exoplanet was just a run-of-the-mill.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

We have quite a lot planets with such low orbital periods, so they are not individually notable. This is not a very remarkable charateristic that is not seen in any other planet. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a bit unusual in that it's an Earth mass planet orbiting very close to a Sun-like star. There's probably an interesting story in how it got down to that orbit. Perhaps a migrating gas giant that has been stripped of its atmosphere? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any studies so it's not notable at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No academic publications or news coverage of the planet was found in either ADS, Google Scholar, or a Google search. Article therefore has minimal, if any, WP:SIGCOV. Ark Hyena (it/its) 16:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hut 33

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [11], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Giacomo Milano

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted article which was recently recreated with no significant improvements. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing there are multiple Italian Ruby players up here made be look below WP:SPORTCRIT to see if there was a Rugby specific guideline. Seeing that there is WP:NRODEO but no Rugby guideline. Makes me think WP could use a Rubgy guideline. I do not have enough subject matter knowledge to want to attempt that though Czarking0 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Basically all primary sources in the sense that they are published by the institutions he plays for. Does not seem to be notable enough in other respects. Googling his name only returns basic player stats. I also tried Italian google news and he does not come up. Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete You're supposes to guess @Liz! Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Knitsey (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Not seeing any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [12]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: couldn't find enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and merit an article. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Kade

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

non-notable musician, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and the same "source". GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep, There's reporting on him from The New Times and so I added it in and he seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. He has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Vikingsam (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The New Times is giving me pause; it feels like the coverage in Indian or Nigerian media, where it seems everyone is a superstar, but no one else bothers to report on their accomplishments. Way too many hits in the one newspaper for this to be a coincidence... Feels like a PROMO. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, but that's the impression I'm getting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? Vikingsam (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Pomodorino di Manduria

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

It doesn't seem to be a noteworthy article. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment plant species are not something I would normally edit. I've added two references, one was take from the article prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale. I've included that ref (pdf) as I think it fulfills one of the criteria of WP:NBREED? Recognised under prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale? I am going to wait to see if someone from the plant project can confirm this? Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Discussed in scholarly sources (as a cultivar; I don't know if I would use the Italian name for the article title); cited in Italian newspapers ([13]; [14]); described in the official Regional Register of Autoctonous Genetical Resources of the Apulia region ([15]). --cyclopia ^speak! 11:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NBREED given sources listed by @Cyclopia. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Eitermillen

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

A very small place with no notability of its own, better as a redirect to Contern. The sources often don't support the text (e.g. despite repeated claims that Eitermillen used to be at a place now called Maulin Diderich, I don't see any of the sources making that connection?) and are passing mentions or names on maps only. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of this tiny hamlet (a "lieu-dit" is basically a named house or group of houses, not a once independent village), and the history and demographics seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR due to this lack of sources. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ I do believe the subject matter here is notable, however it appears that the article in its current state lacks in sourcing to verify claims and establish said notability. Once redirected I can once again work on a draft or in my sandbox to compile more sources and improve the article so it’s ready for the mainspace. N1TH Music (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an odd vortex of an article where it clearly exists on maps and in at least one source, but there's nothing else to support that source in anything that's easily searchable on the web: ie I can verify that the place exists just enough to know it's likely not a hoax, but not enough to get it past the WP:V we need for a legally recognised place. (The fact there are no page numbers for the 1889/90 source help nothing.) I'd prefer a result which allows restoration once verified. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer well the source [16], it might be just a map but it’s posted on an official government owned website also if you look at the article List of Populated places in Luxembourg the sources cited is also that of a government owned website and is a database of all the legally recognised localities in Luxembourg an it lists Éitermillen. Is that not enough to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Your first map shows Oetrange, Kackerterhaff, and Moutfort, but even when zoomin in no "Eitermillen" appears. Is it supposed to be where the Rue du Moulin and Route de Remich meet? Fram (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fram there’s a search bar at the top wherein you can type Eitermillen and a point appears at the location was if you click the directions icon. Either way it’s in the database. I think I’ve found a clearer link here. Also here is another webpage from the government of Luxembourg website which also mentions Eitermillen. And yes it is around where Route de Remich and Rue de Moulin meet. Is that not sufficient to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh and there’s also this which is a communal document discussing all the projects completed between 2017 and 2023 in Contern and there were 2 projects in Eitermillen which is mentioned by name on page 23 and page 32. N1TH Music (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Page 23 says "New railings on the Eitermillen", this indicates that it isn't really a populated place but a location, building, route... You wouldn't say "new railings on Contern", that would make no sense. Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fram might be a translation error, here’s the french version also those steps can’t refer to a building because there’s no building there, what they’re referring to is this path which is a public footpath connection 2 streets, there isn’t even a building there. Also what about the other citations I listed here. N1TH Music (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I haven't looked at everything: after a map which doesn't mention Eitermillen, and a communal document stating that they will add railings to a path named Eitermillen, I now checked this one you gave, where the closest I can find is Hëttermillen, which is also the only results I get when searching that website for Eitermillen[17]. So, after three wild goose chases, I stop looking at sources you provide, as they are wasting my time. Fram (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@Fram Strange, the 3rd and most recent source you checked, when I typed “Eitermillen” into google, google stated that found inside the link “ Concernant la réglementation temporaire de la circulation sur la N2 entre Sandweiler et le lieu-dit « Eitermillen » à l'occasion de travaux forestiers.” And yet in the website itself I can’t find it. I apologise I should have double checked before sending it.

But you seem to have ignored the source I mentioned was listed on the List of populated places in Luxembourg article. On page 15 if you press the eye icon on the file you can find it clearly lists it under both Eitermillen and Oetrange-Moulin. And while it does say that it’s not an “official locality” thats because Lieu-dits aren’t incorporated as such because that entails them being census subdivisions. Kréintgeshaff for example isn’t incorporated either, unless you think Kréintgeshaff should be deleted too, either way is this not evidence of Éitermillen being legally recognised? And I actually found more sources but it seems you don’t need to see anymore. N1TH Music (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "at the Eitermillen" is a translation error. I'd err on the side of keep now. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Still doesn't indicate much more than what we know, it's a "lieu-dit": our article on those isn't very good, but basically this is a named farm (or mill in this case), not an actual village. This is the Luxemburgish article on them[18], the translation makes it clear that these aren't really considered villages. Fram (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
No - the translation of the Letzebuergish shows a lieu-dit could also have been anything from a house to a former locality, and we potentially have a census listing of 8 people living there which would indeed qualify it, if the source is any good (again this is where a lack of a page number hurts.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer do you not have access to the preview or something? Because when I view the source I can scroll through the pages of the book at located exactly where it says “Oetrange-Moulin”. The listing is on page 255. N1TH Music (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
There it is, thanks! It's a very large document and search didn't work. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer So is that a keep from you then or a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep from me. It meets our criteria, but not by much. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Having searched for more sources and begun rewriting the article to better fit WP:V, I am changing my status from Redirect to Keep as I'm now more confident in the articles Notability. N1TH Music (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment This appears to be part of Oetrange, with the French name (Oetrange-Moulin) being Oetrange combined with the road. I'm not sure what makes it a separate topic. CMD (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis officially Eitermillen has always been categorised as a separate settlement, all sources I’ve found discussing it seem to talk of it separately from Oetrange, for example then 1890 census, this topographic map from 1905 (albeit under a different name), and even modern communal documents, on pages 23 and 32 of this it discusses new stuff being constructed in Eitermillen not in Oetrange. Finally, this source which lists every locality in Luxembourg and is the basis for the entire List of Populated Places in Luxembourg article has 2 separate entries for Oetrange and Oetrange-Moulin. (If you want to see for yourself, it’s on page 15 of the document) N1TH Music (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say any of those sources discuss Eitermillen. That aside, the one conter.lu page that would load for me calls it "the Éitermillen", which if not unusual should likely be reflected in the prose. CMD (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis as is written earlier, the “at the Éitermillen” is a translation error, for example also on page 32 it reads, “new trees in route de remich. As route de remich is a road, “on” is the appropriate terminology there. These translation errors aren’t uncommon they clearly meant to say “in Éitermillen and if you’re really not sure then a quick look at the french version should clear everything up. N1TH Music (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
What is the evidence for it being a translation error? CMD (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Well on page 23, in the section "New railings on the Éitermillen" there is underneath the text, in italics, the french title, "Nouvelle balustrade à Oetrange-moulin afin d’améliorer la sécurité des promeneurs" which, when translated properly translates to "New railings in Oetrange-moulin to improve safety for walkers". Same goes for the page 32 sections, "La création de deux étangs à Oetrange-moulin" translates to "The creation of two ponds at Oetrange-moulin" or "The creation of two ponds at Oetrange-moulin". The reason it could be either is because the french word "à" can mean either "at" or "in" depending on context and that is the source of the translation error. However either way neither translation referred to the place as "The Eitermillen"

Additionally on this matter I can prove that "Oetrange-Moulin" isn't just a mill in Oetrange and is a separate settlement. For starters, Oetrange-Moulin/Éitermillen directly translates to "Oetrange Mill" not the Mill of Oetrange which is how a building itself would be referred to. In fact the building where the settlement is located has several historical references where it is listed as the "Moulin d'Oetrange".By checking the government database, a-z.lu I searched for both "Moulin d'Oetrange" and "Oetrange-Moulin. Oetrange-Moulin yielded many listings of it amongst other place names for example, [19][20][21][22] while Moulin d'Oetrange yielded newspaper listings for the purposes of advertisement of the mill itself, [23], therefore no Oetrange-Moulin is not just a name given to a mill near Oetrange. Additionally it is important to note that many of the listings of Oetrange-Moulin for example [24] also list Oetrange as a separate entry in the same directory therefore demonstrating that they are regarded as separate settlements. And if you're still not certain then I can demonstrate that this phenomenon of having 2 different settlements named like this is actually very common, for example Fawkham and Fawkham Green, 2 places administered under the same parish but depicted as 2 different places on all maps due to some sort of historical separation. Other examples include Wonston and South Wonston or Latheron and Latheronwheel. N1TH Music (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I can translate the French as well, that doesn't mean the authors might not be translating it differently for a reason. I don't follow the logic for the second paragraph, "Oetrange Mill not the Mill of Oetrange" seems a distinction without a difference, and you need to work on your examples, Fawkham Green it its entirety as an article is "Fawkham Green see Fawkham". How did you even find that? CMD (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I selected Fawkham green as it was a place I remembered finding a few years ago on a map. I just happened to remember that place when searching for examples, obviously the article for Fawkham green is terrible however and honestly should probably just be redirected. But regardless of the dubious quality of the article my point was that these 2 places are listed separately on maps

And as for "that doesn't mean the authors might not be translating it differently for a reason", I cannot prove anything with absolute certainty (unless you want me to literally go to the town hall itself and ask which I'd actually be fully willing to do as I genuinely want to know for certain) but I highly doubt that "New railings on the Éitermillen" or "New ponds at the Éitermillen" were translated as such for any reason as to me that reads as broken English, that doesn't sound grammatically or syntactically correct at all. It reads as though the translator the commune found to translate this document isn't fluent in English. Therefore I believe it is just to assume they are indeed translation errors under WP:Common Sense and therefore this communal document is viable as a source to demonstrate that Éitermillen is a distinct, notable settlement separate from Oetrange. N1TH Music (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
"The X" is a perfectly fine grammatical structure, not broken English, and is not uncommon for place names. In this case, it's easy to for example translate it as "new ponds at the mill". CMD (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Alright for that specific example I concede that it is possible that they could have been referring to the mill itself. But how could you justify that "New railings on the Éitermillen" is not an error as the railings weren't constructed on the mill itself, they are on a public footpath. One cannot say that there are railings on a mill, if the railings aren't on the mill to begin with, they're on a path 50 metres away from it.

Additionally the 2 paragraphs discussing Éitermillen aren't the only ones with incorrect syntax. Also on page 32 there is a paragraph titled "New trees in Route de Remich", last I checked one cannot plant trees in a road, trees are planted on a road. This example isn't a one off either, on page 10, the entire "New retention basins" section, the same mistake is made continuously, "in the rue de la source", "in the rue de prés". The error is made clearer if you are to translate the street names, "in the source road" and "in the meadow road" are incorrect syntax. What it should say is "on source road" and "on meadow road" N1TH Music (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't plant trees on a road, that would be very bad for traffic. You can however plant them on a route. However, this is not that important overall, the point is we have apparently one source with sentences and that at least twice uses the "the" prose structure. That we have to analyse this closely to try and figure out which English grammatical structure they may have been using and whether it was in error, for something as basic as the name, is perhaps a sign more sources are needed. CMD (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis okay you made a small error there "route de remich" is quite literally the name of the road itself but you're right that's not so important, I shall read closer to seek clarity and will see if any other sources can confirm that this is in fact a translation error and that Oetrange-Moulin is in fact regarded as a place and isn't just the mill of Oetrange. N1TH Music (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping it being a place with a "the". My original point was about prose, although it did turn into a lack of sourcing issue. CMD (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Alright so I presume that the main issues you have suggested to confirm the notability of this article are "Is it verifiable that this place is regarded as separate from Oetrange" and if so "is this place independently notable. Therefore the concerns are centred on WP:V and WP:GEOLAND.

Éitermillen is a Lieu-dit which is a type of small settlement. The nominator here, Fram holds the opinion that Lieu-dits aren't villages, which is correct and that therefore they aren't legally recognised, which is not true and not notable which is misguided as Lieu-dits vary massively. Kréintgeshaff, Banzelt, and Waldhof all either have sizeable populations major pieces of infrastructure which yield them local importance while others like Brem in Dalheim or Marxeknupp also in Contern (which I, a while ago made an article for which was redirected) only consist of a couple of buildings. What groups them together is solely that they are all categorised by the government as Liue-dits. All of these places, appear in this previously mentioned directory, as well as several others [25][26] It's listed on road signs as per the image in the infobox in the article and mentioned on documents discussing imminent road works [27] Its also listed in Communal documents like the one we discussed previously, and it's listed in census records, [28]Page 255 [29]Page 27. Finally there are several official maps published by Geoportail.lu (a government run website) which mention it, including 2 from 1905, 1927 and 1939 which mention it under a different name, those from 1954, to 1979 which refer to it as the "ancient mill" to more modern maps which albeit do only refer to it as "Millen" (mill in Luxembourgish) however if you check the legend listed the text used is that of "petit lieu-dit" and since it is named "Eitermillen" and is in close proximity to "Oetrange" they decided to drop the first half.[30] There are several more documents I found but decided not to include as many were similar directories of place names or maps which had no new information and others were the ones on A-Z.lu which I'd already mentioned previously. All of this should provide enough verifiability that Éitermillen is in fact regarded as a place, a "populated, Legally recognised place" and therefore it is "presumed to be notable" under WP:GEOLAND. As for WP:V, I think that these same references do provide a clear enough distinction between Éitermillen and Oetrange to verify that it is a separate place. If you still aren't sure here are some news articles detailing traffic collisions which were described as occurring in Éitermillen/Oetringen-Muhle,[31][32][33][34]

All this should mean that only concern regarding the notability of the article should be WP:GNG more specifically, WP:SIGCOV. I think SIGCOV is passed as a result of the previously discussed communal document, the census records, the documents I referred to on A-Z.lu and these 3 pages I found on Industrie.lu which collectively detail the history of the area[1][2][3].

If you have any concerns regarding the sources or whether this is actually sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND, WP:V or WP:SIGCOV, please explain as there are several avenues of sources I'm still yet to properly delve into and I admit that many of the sources might be hard to read or get information out of. N1TH Music (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

János Végső

(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) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Relist~~ I think this one warrants more investigation. Significant coverage in the Hungarian Sports newspaper Nemzeti Sport such as [35] and [36]. Also some here on Blikk website.[37] A google search for his name and nemzeti sport shows multiple strong hits so may well be notable in Hungary. Canary757 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above coverage (though the Nemzeti Sport links seem to be the same one), with even more coverage available in Hungarian language websites - Hatharom, Nemzeti Sport and interviewed in part in Bunteto. Interestingly, Nemzeti Sport in an article specifies that there was "another final success, but not from János"... that's gotta be at least some sign of notability that they've gotta specifically mention it wasn't him, right? Anyway, further research would benefit from using the Hungarian-language versions of his name - either "Végső János" or "Végső Jánosnak". ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Good extra source addedCanary757 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pál Székely

(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) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Another one who looks notable in Hungary. Found this [38] in Magyar Nemzet, This [39] [] in Nemzeti Sport. In Blikk newspaper there is is this [40] I've only looked at a few Hungarian papers so there may be a lot more. Any thoughts?Canary757 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep per above sources identified by Canary757. That Magyar Nemzet article is a brilliant example of sigcov (and even has other outlets reporting on parts of it). Further coverage can be found in Index.hu, M4sport.hu, 24.hu, further coverage in Index.hu, HVG.hu and Origo.hu. Trouble is that googling "Pal Székely" rarely returns any coverage because of Hungarian naming customs which put the name as "Székely Pal", but googling the latter or "Székely Penge" finds some very strong coverage indicating he's nationally notable in Hungary. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The Nemzet article has only a paragraph of coverage; the rest is interview quotes which do not count towards GNG as primary and non-independent. The first three other sources also appear to be just Q&A interviews. Can you find some non-interview coverage of him? JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious about the status of interviews; when I check GNG, the reference to secondary sources is that they need "at least one secondary source" (which in this situation would be the latter Index article) and then says sources "should" be secondary. Then when I check WP:PRIMARY it says "(depending on context) interviews", which links me to WP:Reliable_sources#News organizations, in which there is... nothing listed about the aforementioned interviews. Is the inference here that any sort of interview content, regardless of how widespread or what source it's in, is entirely worthless and bunk in determining notability? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The general consensus has been that secondary content from the interviewer, e.g. background on the interviewee prepared before the interview, can count towards GNG if it's SIGCOV, but anything coming from the interviewee (either directly in quotes or lightly paraphrased by the interviewer) is not independent or secondary. I'd say the Index article is verging on a routine recap (personally I would classify it as fully routine, as it's just briefly reporting his performance in one tournament). JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the clarification. Well, I'm finding it hard, owing to my lack of Hungarian (I'm presuming there may be more hidden mentions such as the "Székely Palnak" ones that wouldn't initially come up on search) to find further sources. I'll just hope that whoever closes this will note the various Hungarian national sporting outlets that've gone to the bother of interviewing the subject in detail; even if not counted in the rule-based notability check, it's at least some sort of background showing this isn't just some complete unnotable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Will give a more expanded response when I have more time but German website dartn.de [41] which has a nice bio about him describes him as one of the most famous players in Eastern Europe (via google translate).Canary757 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

A redirect to Ottoman Hearths seems like a middle ground here. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge per above. Given that List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty is currently described as containing some of the most important mosques in modern-day Turkey that were commissioned by the members of Ottoman imperial family, I'd strongly prefer List of mosques in Turkey instead since the mosques in the list under discussion weren't actually commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or imperial family but rather by governors and other local notables. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Netta Schreiber

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Israel. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)

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

Sources on page are no good, one being the artist's website and the other being an AllMusic page with no published review or rating. And I couldn't find any additional reliable coverage, not even the Kerrang! review which the article suggests exists (though I wouldn't doubt that it does and just isn't archived). But even so, Kerrang! alone would not save this article, and I haven't seen coverage which would. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep I got incidentally involved with this while doing some work on the list of 2008 albums article. After I removed an unreliable source for this album there, the entry as a whole was challenged. A couple casual searches didn't find decent sourcing apart from a review by High Voltage Magazine (incidentally, HVM might be an AfD candidate), and my restoration was reverted, and I was referred to this AfD. I was thinking that this probably was a good AfD candidate, but after a more comprehensive search, I'd now say definitely keep. In addition to the possible Kerrang! review, there's reviews by Metal Hammer Germany [42], Metal.de [43], and (albeit less impressively) MetalFan.nl.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Important to note that 3family6 added Metal.de to RSMUSIC without any prior discussion, but it was removed right after with a request that such a discussion be had first. 3family6 did start that discussion here, but it has not received any responses yet. There is a good case being made there, but I haven't looked into it myself and can't speak to the source beyond that. All this to say that source's reliability is still an open question, and if it were rejected then that would leave us at just (presumably, if someone can find the Kerrang! review) two reliable sources, which I think is too thin a margin to pass this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fair to disclose. I will make clear that I've used this source for years, as have many others, and it has never been challenged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the reliability of the source wasn't questioned, rather my unilateral addition to it to the reliable sources list without discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

QuietHere, it looks like consensus is that Metal.de is reliable, and the editor who challenged the addition did so more out of wanting to make sure that there is discussion. Caveat that participation so far in the discussion has been fairly minimal.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about that. However, I don't think that alone resolves the matter of this album's notability. We still only have two confirmed reliable sources, metal.de and Metal Hammer, and the assumption that the Kerrang! review is out there somewhere. I'm not convinced that that's enough. If nobody else is going to participate in this discussion, I'd rather it close as no consensus as to not discourage other editors from renominating it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Wednesday 13: not finding enough to merit a separate article, but would suggest redirect as alternative to deletion. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to say above but I also support this redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethics of simulated suffering

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

Does not appear to be a robust philosophical concept needing its own article. Two sources provided are self-published and not covered by reliable independent sources. The "connection to catostrphic risks" seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not directly supporting the notability of the concept itself. If anything, a brief mention of ethical concerns in simulated reality seems sufficient. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the concept is notable enough in itself. But some of it could probably be merged into the article ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

English Young Liberals

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

No independent or third-party sources. Structure section just consists of a list of names which seems like WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in Google News, one passing mention in Google Books. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, but in dire need of improvement — I would certainly prefer it being kept as opposed to deleted. Failing that I would prefer it be draft-ified or the like.

I had previously stub-ified the artcle by removing vast amounts of content in this edit and here. I was hesitant to do such but believed it to be needed due to verifibility concerns and to avoid a directory article. After that I'd put it on my radar of pages needing additional content.

I believe that EYL scrapes GNG, from a quick gander using the book search, it seems to be mentioned at least in more than one book (Though firefox seems to be preventing me from using preview to look in the books rather annoyingly), though as you said no significant news coverage. I may be mistaken, but I believe the EYL have had some different names in their past as well which may have better coverage, but I'm struggling to recall or pull up what they were (Which doesn't really help the case I suppose).

I'm under no illusion that this isn't a weak case from me however, and I believe you're right to have brought this up Bejakyo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the book mentions may be a reference to National League of Young Liberals which is not the same org Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The first two hits I found in Google books are the merest passing mentions, not wp:sigcov. I also proposed a redirect to Liberal Democrats (UK) in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Liberals_(UK) after making this nomination.

Orange sticker (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Biometric Consortium

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

Non-notable program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
[44] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 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 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)