Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 06	July 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Fitim Reçi

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

Reçi debuted at a very young age but has now been inactive for over six years and I'm struggling to find any non-database sources on him. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC based on my Albanian source searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaki Kadafi

AfDs for this article:

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

Multiple times contested WP:BLAR; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from this musician's main group, Outlawz. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and New York. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Sports

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

This looks like a WP:PROMOTION to me, Wikipedia Conflict of interest and WP:PAY. It all traced down from the creator who created the article Asa Asika, then created for his company The Plug and now creating branches for the company such as Plug Sports all from one editor who never went through WP:AFCREVIEW. I won't be surprise to see more branches coming up from either the same creator or suck puppet account. The creator also uploaded the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plug_Sports.jpg gotten from the company instagram page. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Entertainment, Companies, Sports, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumkum Munsi

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

Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and India. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Borderline G11, would not object to draftification for an unconnected editor to attempt an article about Munsi's contributions to the Academy, but that alone isn't grounds for notability and I do not see sourcing to pass N:ARTIST although I acknowledge age of his life is in issue there. Star Mississippi 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey A. McNiff

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

this person does not seem very notable, just a retired executive. one of the only recent pieces of information that comes up when I search her name is this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/07/abortion-rights-supporters-wont-get-their-amendment-passed-without-republican-women-like-audrey-mcniff-00165157 CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no coverage of this person, what's used in the article is trivial coverage. There seems to be nothing online about her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Girls General Degree College, Ekbalpur

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

Unsourced since 2017. Can't find sourcing that can pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragib Shahriar Ankon

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

Product of BLP1E. dxneo (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. dxneo (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoze Houndz

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QI News

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

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zeta & Ozz

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be notable or pass WP:GNG. Not convinced the current citations are enough.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, with the "keep" votes talk about it being the first Chilean show on Cartoon Network, but not providing any sources to either back that up, or cite that it was signifigant enough to pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Chile. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Indian TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013.

Previous AfD had no participants, so closed as no consensus. Let's figure this one out! DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in Perumbavoor

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. Can be alternatively merged to Perumbavoor#Education The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and the list of educational organizations fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. Wikipedia is not a directory. RangersRus (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Labáthová

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

There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Joseph

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

Neither of the two entries is a compound given name. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia titled Alphonse Georges and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. As for Alphonse Joseph Glorieux, his French wikipedia article is titled Alphonse Glorieux, a newspaper article refer to him the same way,[1] and his English article says "Alphonse Glorieux was born on ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Heng

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

Contested WP:PROD, there has been two WP:BLAR and reverts, now I'm bringing it to AfD to gather consensus. The actor only had minor roles in multiple works, plus a slightly more significant role in Girl vs. Monster. Does not fulfill WP:NACTOR, I suggest a Redirect to Girl vs. Monster#Cast Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cambodia, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalentEgg

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

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

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

The article creator has a conflict of interest (declared in their page) for being paid by Fikra (ref 1 in the article), and this person, Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, is the CEO of the organisation. Going back to WP:NPOL, this person was the assistant chief staff to Sudan's PM, which does not meet the notability requirement for inclusion . Examining WP:SIGCOV, the sources in the article are mostly not about him. It is mostly about the program that he claims to be part of, for example, Ref(5) is about the project - Nafeer Campaign - itself, same for 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, etc. Also few refs are self-published, like ref 16 and 17. The "Political approach and views" section is purely original research, and I have tagged multiple instances of weasel wording and failed verification. Final thing, when looking for articles about this person in Arabic just to confirm coverage, I found negative coverage that is not included in the article (probably due to the author COI). For example, Fareid was convicted of domestic abuse, see 1, 2, 3 and 4. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orsett Heath Academy

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

AfDs for this article:

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

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andries Mahoney

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Northern Marianas Open

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

Yet another low level bwf tournament with little to no coverage in the news. Similar to the previous afd of 2024 Austrian open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the winners are mentioned in the parent article Northern Marianas Open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Martinus

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[6] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Khan (producer)

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCER. The majority of sources cited in the article are sponsored content. I can't find any independent reliable sources about this producer yet.

The page was moved from the draft to the main space without any improvements, ~~and the templates were removed without resolving the issues~~ by the author. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Elephant

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

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindu cosmology. The article appears to be repeating itself a number of times. CharlesWain (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.

Cortador (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[7] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.

JoeJShmo^💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Hai Hum

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama: where it's listed, and add a source (https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to redirect the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Robotyne

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sourcing is fine, [8] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD - what's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bucal

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Generally unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source (2019 archived copy) does not back up the statement on the etymology of the barangay toponym. Much of the article is a directory of their establishments and landmarks: a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bucal, Calamba (to distinguish it from other barangays named Bucal, such as those in Sariaya, Tanza, Magdalena, and Amadeo) and then redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halang, Calamba

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source being used (Nov. 2018 archived copy) does not back up the claim of the barangay being "one of the richest barangays in the city". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I might be wrong, but there are some teeny tiny Sources in Google Books, A 7,000 population barangay seems "notable enough" to me. I also see a dead source in BPI probably stating about Halang, like I said, I might be wrong.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Chile

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

Fails WP:NFILM; no WP:SIGCOV beyond the bibliography reference and the mere mention at IMDb. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princesa Lea

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodboy Galaxy

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [9], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yang Dang Khum

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

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Franco-Thai_War#Campaign: mentioned there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Amato

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[10]] and [[11]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are two similar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountmellick Athletic Club

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

No evidence of notability (found little reliable coverage under the GNG, and clubs are not covered under the sports guideline) Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Quadrantal (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast

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

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. The current population is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, it's verifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.

Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?

There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?

If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.

I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]