Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 25	November 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

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

I don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.

The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. DgwTalk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. DgwTalk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there appear to be some extenuating circumstances here, this discussion would benefit from input from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab speculative fiction

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

None of the sources used here discuss "Arab speculative fiction" as a grouping, only similar but not the same topic. If sources do exist on the topic nothing here is built around them so it is entirely OR at present. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Middle East. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for "Arabic SF". TompaDompa (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's e.g. Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction (2019). The topic, in itself, is certainly notable. /Julle (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa @Julle But as is, every single word in the article is cited to sources not about the article topic - entirely OR. At that point it is WP:TNT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of notability, are science and speculative fiction equivalent? I know they're intertwined but I am uncertain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Speculative fiction is, as commonly understood, broader. Science fiction is a part of speculative fiction. That is, I'd argue an article about Arabic science fiction is relevant for an an article on Arabic speculative fiction, but it's not entirely the same. In a situation where all reliable sources would talk about Arabic science fiction, it'd be far better to move it to Arabic science fiction. /Julle (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, but will be adding the appropriate CTOP notice to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens As is, nothing in the article is salvageable. So unless someone wants to rewrite it and change the scope this is a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't apply, and I wish people would actually read the essay before quoting it. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is nothing salvageable for a topic that is notable under the current article. To comply with policy from what is here it would have to be reduced to a sentence: Arabic science fiction is science fiction written in Arabic (or related to Arabic culture, or something). There is nothing encyclopedic about a one sentence definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Article issues can be solved through the normal editing process, and by discussing issues on the talk page. Oppose WP:TNT deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 23:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to be an important local figure in the Civil Rights Movement in Shreveport both according to his obituary and his inclusion on a black history media page (click on his article) This is also this news article (while from a local channel website; was a reposting of a CNN piece) which called him the first African-American dentist in Shreveport. He is also mentioned in this U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report. Altogether, I think there is a credible claim to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 23:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Sone Singh Ponwar

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

Page was created in 2008 and since then only consists of a single sentence. Likely fails WP:GNG. Could redirect to Chhatarpur State#History (Apologies for any Formatting errors). S302921 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. What a mess. I see a few Google book references under “Kunwar Sone Shah”, but I’m not sure if they count as significant coverage. I’ve done my fair share of rescues this month, so this is not my circus. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A head of state for 31 years is notable and encyclopedic. I added a source. Being a stub is just fine.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there are clearly rulers with much longer reigns who don't have articles. I agree with the other point since it is common but i think it is best being redirected to Chhatarpur State#History like others have said. Since it is restarting perhaps when i have enough time i will think about expanding this article. S302921 (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 23:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no inherent notability for rulers (WP:NPOL applies to politicians and judges), and this individual was not even a "head of state" but rather a head of a princely state that was an administrative unit of Raj-era India. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; the one added to the article is three sentences out of a full book plus three passing mentions. He appears in a few other trivial mentions ([1], [2], [3] for example), but I don't see anything that gets close to WP:SIGCOV that would lead to a WP:GNG or WP:NBIO pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Warrior

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than warriors from the Mohawk nation, there is no coverage of a monster truck. Not sure how we're supposed to evaluate sources in the article when there are none... ah the wild west early days of wikipedia. Sources, we don't need no stinkin sources (google it kids, it's a good movie). Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a bunch of potential sources...
Articles mentioning driver Bryce Kenny:1 2 3
Articles mentioning driver George Balhan: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other small mentions: 1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsage (talk • contribs)

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} 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Arnou

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

Nothing in google news (which is unusual for an Olympian), 2 one-line mentions in google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cole, Indiana

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

Baker only talks about the post office, and yes, there's no sign of a town here. Mangoe (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InstaBook

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heintzman House

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark Business Connections

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Phoenix Economic Council

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Economics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FloodSim

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Resistance Strategies Project

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Law, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manc

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

Article on website that is mostly self sourced. Pretty much entirely promotional. No serious improvements since creation in 2020. I can't find many reliable sources covering the news site. William Graham ^talk 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. William Graham ^talk 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherdsak Chaiyabutr

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

reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 4 references, the first is a youtube video,, the 2nd and 3rd just includ a single mention of his name in a list. I can't find anything at the 4th references although the title looks like an entry in a 1977 newspaper that says that their team won. Tagged by others for wp:notability sinces September. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Skynxnex (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Youtube video in question is a nationally televised TV programme dedicated to profiling renowned sportspeople from the past. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Bogojević

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only no GNG references, has no references other than 4 database listings. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was fairly trivial to find some mainstream Croatian sports coverage like the Večernji list report on when he signed to Rijeka [4] or some of the Sportske novosti articles tagged with his name [5], and these newspapers talk of an experienced player. If we drop this biography where over a hundred appearances are recorded at the top level of a national football league over a period of many years, we would in turn have to drop probably many many more. --Joy (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badri Narayan Singh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Looks like a routine academic resume/CV type material. Of the the references, one his employer's web site and the other is an obituary. Tagged by others for wp:notability since February North8000 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chand FC Layyah

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. All 6 of the references are just databases All of the content is derived from database factoids. Says the last played 11 years ago but never even says what happened to them. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan: Lack of WP:SIGCOV, can be redirected to List of football clubs in Pakistan Demt1298 (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT along with GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mardan Blue Star FC

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Oof the seven reference, 4 are databases, 2 don't even mention them and one has a paragraph w3hich says they were going to the finals one year. All of the content is derived from database factoids. Say the last played 10 years ago but never eves says what happened to them. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Pakistan: Lack of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks reliable secondary sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros

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

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. Most just show passing mention, or do not even mention the subject of the article at all. For example, This ref discusses the office relaxing the dress code, but does not discuss the office per se. This mentions the "DepEd Taguig-Pateros administrator", but again, does not discuss the office per se. This has the office denying a "maternity leave scam" existing, but again, does not discuss the office in depth. This and this merely discusses transfer of schools from the Makati office to Taguig-Pateros due to the Makati–Taguig boundary dispute, but, you guessed it, did not discuss either of the two offices. None of these show WP:SIGCOV and if someone shows up saying "these satisfy WP:SIGCOV in my view" that person has to actually point out where. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following articles to the discussion:

These three are even worse than Taguig-Pateros, as these have less refs and prose than the Taguig-Pateros. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also added this:

Pateros Schools District

Howard the Duck (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Copenhagen (1658)

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

Incomplete article, either delete or merge to Assault on Copenhagen (1659) as its own heading. Gvssy (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Gvssy (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Three versions of the article in other languages. Article is incomplete and could be greatly expanded with material from the Danish and Swedish versions, but WP:deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom As usual with war articles, it could be padded out further but it's clear from the battle article that this is only the first stage of action and ought not to be pulled out of the larger context. And neither article is particularly long. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Kottaram

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

Contested draft. Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turns up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MotorMouf aka Khia Shamone

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

Contested redirect. Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is one solid review in The Guardian. Other than this, I couldn't locate an RS. Possibly there is other coverage behind paywalls, and, given the age, WP:LINKROT may be at work. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to Khia discography. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khia discography. Should not have been restored—Khia is really not notable beyond one song. In regards to the above, one review is not enough to sustain an article. Ss112 00:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ionize (CMS)

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

Tagged for many years, no evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of content management systems per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hopel Brown

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

Fails the criteria in WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. The sources in the article are a couple of news articles of questionable significance and a broken link to the article subject's self-published book. Searching for additional sources reveals that the citogenesis process has begun with the text in this article propagating through the ecosystem of bot-generated articles and info-scraping sites, but it doesn't seem likely that additional reliable sources on this person are forthcoming, and the presence of a article like this actually makes it harder to find such sources if they do exist since the search results for this person are overwhelmed by content scraped from this article. I think we can do without this one. -- LWG ^talk 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NJOURNALIST. I found one book by the subject in google books, and a few news pieces written by the subject but found zero coverage of this person as a writer or journalist. The only sources we have with any in-depth coverage are all related to his criminal record which was a relatively minor incident. This fails our WP:PERP criteria as well as WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, and Jamaica. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II

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

I'll be frank: I recognize a lot of work went into this and it feels like a significant passion project. But that said I also recognize there's a lot wrong with this article: several sources feel like they were synthesized to say far more than they did, and a vast majority say really next to nothing.

There's not a lot of indication to give any real-world importance of the character; you get some gameplay commentary but that exists in a bubble related to their relative games and much of it is strictly from reviews. What isn't from reviews is bare bones reaction and a lot of repetition. It just resoundingly fails notability and SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge: Though I myself created an article for Kunimitsu a couple years back, I don't see this article holding up very well, given the current standards held for character articles (which I have mixed feelings on, to say the least). There might be a couple good sources in there to help notability, but it's not enough. There is some impressive work in there, but some of the sources are also either questionable or outright unreliable. Fighter's Generation, for instance, is a fan site, thus its unreliable. Also, Event Hubs, which the article heavily cites, is deemed unreliable at WP:VG/S. Some of this content can go in Characters of the Tekken series. MoonJet (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of genocides committed by the United States

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

The article should be deleted because the author is a sockpuppet NotSoTough (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G5. Also this is just a linking of various existing Wikipedia articles on select conflicts. The 2003 American Indian Wars covers the same issue, but is a much better coverage. It's not something that lends itself to a simple list. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of the examples listed are examples of genocide/attempts of ethnic cleansing committed by the United States. The fact that it was created by a sockpuppet should be irrelevant; many articles have been created by sockpuppets.ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not protect - WP:G5, to my knowledge at least, only applies to articles made by users in defiance of their ban, so it wouldn't apply here. However, this list serves little purpose, as everything it mentions is covered better elsewhere, and in its current unprotected state, could easily become a WP:SOAPBOX.

Heck, in its initial state, it included black genocide, trans genocide, and workers genocide (an article the sock was drafting at the time), hence why the WP:NPOV tag was added (before getting removed by the commenter above me).

If it isn't deleted, it should at the very least be WP:BLUE LOCKed and actually converted to a list. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the article "serves little purpose" is a WP:USELESS argument; the content is clearly encyclopedic material, as the United States has verifiably committed several genocides. This list is just that; a list of genocides that the US has committed. Yes, things can be better covered elsewhere, but the purpose of this list is navigation; this list's removal would damage a reader's ability to navigate between those genocides. I do agree that the article should be protected, however, as it is clearly a contentious topic and prone to biased edits and sockpuppetry. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious how a new account, just created a few days ago, stumbled upon this deletion discussion and that WP:USELESS essay. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems irrelevant to me. You need to assess what is said rather than who said it and how much seniority they have. Athel cb (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't know about the situation of the article creator. However, the topic seems to be a reasonable aid to navigation. The list could / should be significantly improved, but I don't see why it would be deleted. Shazback (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the sockpuppet investigation for reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax ZionniThePeruser (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an interesting one. This was most certainly created by a sockpuppet with an axe to grind. But it does seem like a reasonable navigational tool. Maybe move to Accusations of genocide by the United States for WP:NPOV concerns? Also noteworthy is that List of genocides committed by the Soviet Union was also created in direct response to this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I strongly oppose speedy deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps said article should've been included in this AfD, considering they're both so similar in content and format. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm bewildered by this nomination. It's an important page and useful navigational tool. It can be improved, but there is no reason to delete it. There have been several contributors to the page. The vast majority of contributions did not come from sockpuppet accounts. Firecat93 (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ironically, NotSoTough, the user that nominated the page for deletion, has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet account!

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of BaharatlıCheetos2.0 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Firecat93 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter who created the topic, its a valid list article. Category:Native American genocide exist, and a list is more helpful than a category, allowing more information to be shown. Could add rows to list information such as year that it happened, number killed, etc. Dream Focus 10:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dream Focus, Shazback and ApolloPhoebus that there is no valid reason to delete this article. Whether one likes it or not it is well worthy of including in Wikipedia. Athel cb (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be very useful (though probably needs to be developed or made into a disambiguation), made by a socketpuppet or not. Mason7512 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangral

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

Article is entirely unsourced and poorly written. The underlying purpose of the article seems to be to glorify the community rather than write an encyclopaedic article. The books detailed at the bottom of the article don't seem particularly reliable either and no page numbers are provided. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think deleting is right answer because this is a real people group. This book seems to indicate the mangral are a clan of the Dogra people. Here is some content on the people group. I'm not an expert on the people groups of Pakistan but this should either be stubified or redirected or merged under WP:ATD at the very least. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only saw this late at night. To help out, I only had time to add the above book reference given above by

4meter4. Hope other editors also chip in because it's a lengthy article that somehow ended up without any References....Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: For now its not ready for main space. If people want to contribute than they can do so in Draft space. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espu Kola

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per invalid deletion rationale, populated places do not fall under GNG. Unless you can elaborate on your reasoning? Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were censuses in Iran in 2011 and 2016 which should give us more up-to-date info rather than the cited 2006 one. However, I couldn't find any information in their census data site about this specific settlement, possibly I didn't find the correct sheet though. --Gilc (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User talk:JJPMaster regarding concerns that were not addressed at the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think either the nomination nor the keep !votes engaged with the essential issue here, which is that this place quite possibly does not exist as an actual community. The reason being that Iran counts its census at rural locations called Abadi. These are simply census-taking locations, and need not correspond to actual villages/towns (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't), and are essentially the Iranian version of census tracts (something explicitly excluded by WP:GEOLAND). Carlossuarez46 went through the 2006 Iranian census making these articles at an incredible fast rate, without bothering to check whether these places actually existed as anything more than a census-taking location. Many of them were obviously wells, pumps, farms, shops, bridges etc. and have been deleted. For example, on the day he created this article, he created at least 445 other articles also about Iranian "villages" (I say "at least" because at least 20,000 of the articles they created have since been deleted and the deleted articles won't show up in this search). Especially since this place doesn't appear to have been included in later censuses (like Gilc I can't find it), it's very likely that it wasn't a real village or community of any sort.

TL;DR - Without any actual location it is impossible to confirm the existence or otherwise of this place as an actual populated community (rather than just a bridge/shop/factory/farm/whatever where the population was counted) and so it should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after deletion less than a year ago and no closer to meeting WP:NCORP. Sources are primarily composed of recycled press releases ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), but also include non-qualifying WP:PRODUCTREVs ([16], [17]); WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs like ([18]; explicitly sponsored content ([19], [20], [21]); WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([22], [23]); pure spam ([24]); and a dead/unarchived link left over from the last creation ([25]). Nothing to meet the test of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing else qualifying. (Note: all participants in previous AfD have been notified of this discussion.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United Arab Emirates. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Based on the previous deletion and looking at the creator edit history, this is also clearly UPE and likely SOCK imo. Based on the WP:BLUDGEONING I would suggest protecting the title from creation. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was on the fence based solely on CoinMarketCap ranking it as #2 largest crypto exchange in the world. But checking more reliable sources like CFI or Statistica shows them only as #10 or #11, respectively. Without that distinction, and with the weak sourcing, I don't see it passing NCORP. The article has been deleted three times before, so SALTing may be in order. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are ended and there is a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Dawson

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

no significant coverage, mostly plagiarized from one source, not notable under WP:ARTIST LarstonMarston (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Comics and animation, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR with reviews of international scope for her books including in Quill and Quire. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Monkeys

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

Article does not meet the general notability guideline; the only reliable source I could find was this. All other sources point to blogs, app listings, or self-published sources. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

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

The article clearly lacks any WP:independent sources. Xpander (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industry characters

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

A contested redirect, an unreferenced list, and technically too old to draftify. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim if needed. 1) The topic is Industry (TV series) so notability is established. 2) as a SIZE OR WP:SS split of a notable topic, primary sources are just fine for meeting V and NPOV policies. 3) LISTN is satisfied by WP:CSC point 2, every entry is non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 26 November 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 Draftify‎. Ispo facto draftification by creating editor. A good result by WP:IAR means. It needs development in Draft (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rhoades

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

Previously drafified, WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral drafftification. Fails WP:NARTIST. draftify by consensus is an acceptable outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 26 November 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.

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "we are also primarily a news organization" That is news to me. Since when are we supposed to simply offer news coverage instead of being an encyclopedia? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I mentioned WP:ROUTINE, I meant to say sources that weren't news articles or similar primary sources. Originalcola (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't mean to double vote there and shouldn't have used a bold heading. Originalcola (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies.4meter4 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is no longer a reason to delete and redirect is effectively a merge? Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is absolutely a reason to delete. That editor's edits should be completely stripped from the article history and entirely removed from view/access. I support a redirect. Not a merge.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to that article, G5 does not apply. nableezy - 17:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already stated that G5 won't apply here. Besides, someone already tried to do a speedy deletion and it was contested. Originalcola (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage in academia [26] [27] [28] [29] and news media [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Topic could be broadened to not just focus on 2023-2024, but Gaza overall, as this has been the subject of WP:SIGCOV prior to the war [36] [37] [38]. I'm not seeing any persuasive argument for merging this with parent articles. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the academic sources cited seem to include more than a single sentence mentioning premature births. [2] doesn't even include a sentence on premature births, just having the word prematurity in a list. This is clearly trivial coverage in articles in which preterm births are not the main focus. The issue with using news articles is that this article assumes that much of the coverage is in relation to individual events like the raid on Al-Shifa last year and thus don't actually say much about preterm births. These events may or may not be notable, but there still remains a clear lack of depth and duration of coverage of increases in pre-term deaths, premature births or anything similar. With regard to the claim that preterm births in a specific area of a country, I would also disagree, especially since all 3 of the sources are masters theses. These are not only unreliable sources by the standards of Wikipedia but also don't seem to have any reason to be linked to what's going on in Gaza right now. Originalcola (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we forget about all the academic sources, it still meets GNG based on the news media sources, and those are appropriate sources for a current event such as this war. The news RS don't just focus on one event/hospital (and the selection I posted aren't all of them; more are in the article). Levivich (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an article on a topic like this should be comprised mostly or in whole by news articles without a good reason. GNG states that secondary sources should be used, which none of the cited news media articles are; you can't establish notability with just primary sources. The appropriateness of news articles as sources for an article doesn't mean that they themselves form the basis of notability without reliable secondary sources. It also seems that every source currently in the article is a news article and that there are no secondary sources included in the article at present.

I also don't agree with your assertion that the articles "don't focus on one event/hospital". Sources 6,7,9 and 10 are also covering one hospital, those being al-Nasr for 6, Al Shifa for 7 and 10 and Emirati for 9. As it stands the article is currently split up into different sections on different hospitals and as such the news articles cited are predominately focused on each individual hospital or event as opposed to the wider topic of the article. In all articles premature births and deaths are mentioned as part of the wider context of the effects of this war on children in the Gaza Strip rather or individual hospitals. This is mostly the case for the news articles cited as well. Originalcola (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles form the basis of notability for all notable current events topics. You can disagree with it if you want to, but it's still Wikipedia policy that news articles are RS. Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles do not necessarily form the basis of notability for current events for a variety of reasons I hope are fairly obvious, and there is no indication that this event is notable in the articles. My issue is not that I disagree that news articles are reliable, but that the articles included lack sufficient depth and duration to establish the topics' significance. Many of the sources are reliable without doubt, but for the purposes of WP:GNG there needs to exist secondary sources of reliable nature, not just news articles which in this case are predominately primary sources. That's why I put so much weight into the fact that there isn't any academic coverage of this topic, as those are generally the highest quality secondary sources.

TL;DR:Lack of secondary sources, overreliance on primary sources in news reports. Originalcola (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for more commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. Per nom, this article is overly specific and redundant, since the topic is adequately covered in other articles.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. This is article count bludgeoning: yes, it's a humanitarian crisis but writing an article on every aspect when in an actual encyclopedia a sentence at most would be required is quite WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you'd look at this article and conclude that a sentence is the most that would be written in an encyclopedia to cover this topic. How could you possibly condense it all into one sentence? What would that sentence be? Levivich (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the WP:GNG reasons listed by others and because of WP:PAGEDECIDE - if we are trying to decide how to present information so that readers best understand it, then merging it into an already huge article seems like it would have the opposite impact. The issue in question has global attention and as others have so capably shown, RS (both academic and journalistic) cover it as a topic in its own right, so I don't see why we wouldn't do so, also. There is research from before 2023-24 that indicates that this is part of a WP:SUSTAINED issue as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, children doesn't fit. There is also a woman in every pre term birth. So, it could go there or in the page on women. The ambiguity is a reason to do neither. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder if 637 notable planets exist. Almost all of these planet articles are stubs with mostly stats from a database. I can't find any with a citation that's directly about any particular planet. Wizmut (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough evidence to show a solution that was clearly vetted by the community.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I can see this is a pass for WP:LISTN based on multiple academic papers discussing extrasolar planets detected by this method as a group (e.g., this, this). The other arguments seems addressable by ordinary editing to ,e.g., limit the list only to those planets that are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename something like List of earliest exoplanets detected by radial velocity with a cutoff date? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the source for the list inclusion criteria? More sensible to limit it to items that are notable or confirmed. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Media

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this label. There are trivial mentions but nothing more. Frost 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà (Sarah song)

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

Lacking significant coverage. Does not pass WP:NSONGS. Frost 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah (Italian singer): found no additional coverage nor anything else NSONG-related. May be worth searching Italy-specific publications/archives just in case, but for a song this recent there should be online coverage which I didn't see. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah (Italian singer): Song has not charted, but appears on the artist's article in her discography. Recon rabbit 17:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarah (Italian singer) per above, non-charting single with no significant coverage in RS. The same for other Sarah's songs created from the same user, L'ultima volta, Touché (Sarah song), Viole e violini, Voilà (Sarah song) (not even a single). Cavarrone 06:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenzo Manganiello

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think much has changed since the last AfD. Most of the sources are insignificant/primary: quotes, mentions, interviews. Does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Frost 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost, Sir/Madam, I have used those references that are not merely quotes or mere mentions. These are news articles that gets published or covered by third party sources. These are not promotional content se. Still, you are more experienced editor than me and can guide me as I have done my research and can share references that fulfill the criteria of WP:BASIC. Your guidance will be highly appreciated. ~~~~ Fanalrino (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have cross checked again. All of the mentioned sources are secondary sources and not simply mentions or interviews and I think so passes the WP:BASIC. So, the subject passes the Notability criteria and should be there on wikipedia. Fanalrino (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are more experienced than me and can help in editing all relevant reasons for deletion, please do highlight so it can be fixed instead of nominating it for deletion. Your input on this matter will be highly appreciated. Fanalrino (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF. For GNG, I see press releases, a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and unreliable sources. I do not think it is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: It does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG as majority of citations are from secondary reliable sources and do not have passing mentions only. There are complete articles on the subject and about his business. I do agree with the fact that it does not fall under WP:NPROF but it does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. It specifically cover the clause titled as ""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." Also, it adhers to clause "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So, I think so it should not be deleted. Fanalrino (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

Accepted at AFC in 2015, but standards were somewhat less exacting then. Simon is presented with many references, but appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman dabbling in psychedelic drugs. Much of the rest appears to be wealthy persons hobbies. The references, especially the more authoritative ones, seem to be what Simon says, not what is said about him. Sample checking the others shows them to be of a similar nature. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower, California

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

One of Carlossuarez46's mass-created articles based on GNIS, an unreliable source. On the same day they created this article, they created 129 other articles. No evidence that this was ever more than the store at the cross-roads that is presently called "Wild Flower", and which would have had a post-office in it for the use of people passing by. To be notable, stores and post-offices need to pass WP:NCORP, which is clearly not passed.

Was PROD'd and de-PROD'd last year since the de-PRODer thought it might pass GEOLAND. Briefly, this article fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition (e.g., incorporation as a town) and WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this passes WP:GNG or that there is actually a community there other than the Wild Flower Market (store). The common name also complicates searching for information. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supranet

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Themoonisacheese (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Vahabi

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

I don't think this article merits deletion, just wanted to make sure it's properly reviewed. Xpander (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Iran, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His citation counts are not strong enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 in economics, but there are enough book reviews (now in the article) for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF by citations seems borderline; the top citations in GS[39] are decent (125, 97, 96) but the total citations & h-index are rather low. However the reviews added by David Eppstein meet my definition of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Salad

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The discussion page indicates several requests. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Hoskote

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

Non-notable actor, none of the sources in the article meet WP:RS, and a BEFORE search brings up nothing. Fails WP:NBIO. CoconutOctopus talk 08:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CoconutOctopus talk 08:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, at this time subject clearly fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Baqi:) (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pretty clear as of right now. Tolozen (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no indication of notability at all. Fram (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's stated that he's been a film actor since 2014, but there's no clear filmography history, a quick search shows it fails WP:GNG. --Gilc (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iddaru (2024)

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

Duplicate article of another one that exists hidden in the page history of Iddaru (2024 film), which is clearly about the same film, though it isn't entirely clear why that article was BLARed. Both articles should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is Oppanda Kannada Language Movie releaseed in 2022, But Iddaru is remake Movie in Telugu Languagw Movie. The Iddaru (2024 film) can be Murged or redirected to this article Sudheerbs (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: can you explain what are the reasons for deletion for this article?

The history seems to be

23 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) created by @Monhiroe:
25 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Oppanda as a dubbed version by @DareshMohan:
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) created by @Sudheerbs:
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Iddaru (2024) by Sudheerbs
26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) nominated for deletion by CycloneYoris
The only discussion I have found is at Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? started by @Herodyswaroop:
The Telugu article seems to be at te:ఇద్దరు (2023 సినిమా). TSventon (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I haven't expressed any desire to delete this article, and brought it to AfD mainly because of the duplicate article that exists, which is why I suggested to merge it with the existing one. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had this discussion before, this is a kannada movie dubbed in telugu and @Dareshmohan has confirmed this. So, we can merge with Oppanda article and mention iddaru is its telugu version comment added by Herodyswaroop (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore redirect of Iddaru (2024 film) to Oppanda per Herodyswaroop. Dubbed / partially reshot films do not get articles. Read Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? for proof that the film is dubbed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamadheera (2024 film) for the precedent set that dubbed films do not get articles. The definition of a partially reshot film is a film where a minor part of the film was reshot and a majority wasn't. See List of multilingual Indian films#Partially reshot films, 99% of partially reshot films, do not get articles. The one instance where it has a separate article, 50% of the film was in fact reshot. The reason that this film can not get a separate article is that the lip sync issues are clear from the trailer itself. This [40] lacks lip sync while the same dialogue from the original [41] is in perfect lip sync.

As per the comment at the Indian cinema taskforce here, even if they are reshot partially, it still doesn’t need a separate article. If we are to delve into original research, they reshot a single dialogue in Telugu here vs the original here. The makers of the film were smart enough to release the same trailer as the original version. Complete with English dialogues, only the English dialogues would be in lip sync. When the trailer itself lacks lip sync, do you expect the film to be a straight film?

Regarding the Telugu wiki, even dubbed Telugu films get an article there. Apart from Hindi, since the 1990s several films have been dubbed in Telugu and became mainstream. DareshMohan (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk

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

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

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

The only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [42]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some improvement, but he's well-cited in scholarly literature. Yuchitown (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the cites? In GS there are only 9, and we usually expect several thousands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

comment I've made a start on re-writing the article, and will come back to it Lajmmoore (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Utrilla

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

Absence of sources discussing the individual in detail. As a footballer it appears he played a single league match in 2016. This is far below the threshold for establishing notability. C 679 07:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. C 679 07:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere close to notable. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani University

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, Universities need to satisfy the stringent WP:NORG in order to have an article on Wikipedia. There are indeed sources here, but they are only discussing announcements of either opening of the university or its accreditation by Indian authorities, which is only WP:ROUTINE coverage not WP:SIGCOV, they may also fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) passes WP:GNG added references and there is coverage in Hindi and Gujarati languages as well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]

References

^ "Adani University inks MoU with VJoist Innovation". Deccan Chronicle. 27 February 2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ Chhapia, Hemali (23 February 2024). "MOU to collaborate on academics and research". The Times of India. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ "Adani University Granted University Status By Assembly". The Times of India. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ "Adani Group receives approval to set up university in Ahmedabad". Business Standard. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ Bhaskar, R.N. (2022). Gautam Adani: Reimagining Business in India and the World. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 20. ISBN 978-93-5492-763-8. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
^ "UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 25.01.2023" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2024.
^ "Adani University Holds First Convocation — Preeti Adani Emphasises Innovation, Research Focus". NDTV Profit. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ ""Chairman's vision to create university of excellence", Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ANI News. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University Felicitates Four Gold Medalists, 69 MBA, MTech Post Graduates At Inaugural Convocation". News24. 6 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University inks pact with VJoist Innovation to transform Indian academic arena". Bizzbuzz. 5 March 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University accorded status by Gujarat Legislative Assembly". Ahmedabad Mirror. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University Holds First Convocation; 69 Postgraduates Honored". G R Mukesh. Free Press Journal. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Chairman's vision is to create university of excellence, says Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ETEducation.com. 7 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ Focus, ABP Live (6 July 2022). "Adani University Hosts Global Education Forum". ABP Live. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University committed to shape new India: Dr Priti Adani". The Hans India. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ Sharma, S. (2022). ProjectX India: 15th April 2022 edition. ProjectX India. Sandeep Sharma. p. 47. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

~~Keep - I believe the references found, added and listed above by Pharaoh of the Wizards establish SIGCOV beyond what was described in the AfD nomination.~~ starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn my vote above after reviewing WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the sources again. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t see any policy that states being a fully accredited, degree-issuing university automatically meets notability. Upon reviewing the sources provided by Pharoh, I strongly disagree that the subject meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. These sources fail to provide WP:SIGCOV and instead rely on quotes from primary or connected college officials. They include press releases, such as the Deccan Chronicle, and paid articles, like ABP Live. As a result, I do not believe this article meets our notability guidelines under WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 13:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided mainly cover individual events such as MoUs, convocations, and approvals and the majority of references are from press releases, media outlets with a limited scope, and self-promotional content. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton LeSueur

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

WP:BLP of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting criteria for the notability of unelected candidates. As always, unsuccessful candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the "automatic" notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get to have articles only if they can (a) demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy would pass the ten year test as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
But neither of those has been shown here, and the article is referenced to one glancing mention on one page of a book that isn't about him and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Mississippi. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Intercontinental

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

Created by a blocked sockpuppet. No evidence of notability. Tagged as such for a year without improvement. I checked a few sources and they all seemed to be unreliable, not significant coverage, variations of the same press release, etc. etc. This is related to but not quite the same as Miss Intercontinental which has been deleted and salted a bajillion times. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heikki Hermunen

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Based on 1 database source. Google news yields nothing and google books just results listing. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking in WP:SIGCOV. Less than 10 Google Books results but half are false positives and the rest are just mentions. Less than 40 Google News results, most are false positives or only mentions, most coverage is only from a blog. Overall not prominent, less than 100 Google Search results. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasville City Schools (Alabama)

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

Non notable topic, all references are to the school system's own website. Article content as also of little importance and most of it doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyways Sandcat555 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. School districts are suitable topics in general, indeed less notable schools can often be covered in an article about the district. However, the current article looks like a self-promotional ‘about us’ piece, not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: Deletion is not appropriate for problems that can be fixed. I agree this article is an advertorial, but that can be fixed with an extensive rewrite. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or by turning into a basic WP:STUB, which would take maybe 60 seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - US school districts are not judged by the notability standards for schools. They are a unit of government and as such, have a much lower notability hurdle. Even without any research, I am certain this subject will meet that lower hurdle. Public school districts have extensive reporting requirements to both the state and federal government. Additionally, they both levy taxes and hold elections, which pretty much guarantees coverage in secondary sources. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are always sources available for US school districts if you look for them. A very simple WP:BEFORE search turned up this news report, which is not the happy-advertorial content that the boosters would like, but it should be in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi everybody! So I am the user who did most of the writing for this article. I completely agree that in it's current format it is extremely advertorial in it's current form. A school district is notable in my opinion. The bad writing came from the fact that it was my first time adding info on to a a stub article but I have since looked at many other pages and feel that it can be improved. I believe that there was even recent controversy that could be noted. Thank you all for your contributions to this conversation!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle Mac CJM (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago Gold Rush (basketball)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is alot of work but the team has ample coverage about it as one of the top women's basketball teams in New Zealand.National Womens Basketball Championships Finals Tip Off Thursday, Long build-up finally over for Gold Rush, Basketball: Otago crowned WBC champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The team played in the Women's Basketball Championship – a fairly unremarkable New Zealand domestic competition with no wiki page. Are you willing to demonstrate this team's notability by expanding the article? A general google search of "otago gold rush basketball" doesn't yield many results. That first article you linked for example is a copy and paste from Basketball New Zealand. The page is also a borderline Orphan. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcana, Indiana

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

A no-there-there spot consistent with being a 4th class post office, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that there was ever anything more than a post-office at this location. Post offices are covered by WP:NCORP which this obviously fails. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Flip^and Flopped ツ 21:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is a widely celebrated festival in India. It is well recognized by government officials. As stated in the article: It is officially celebrated by the Chhattisgarh Govt in schools and colleges as ordered by the Chief Minister. State government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party made it an official celebration. In 2017 the District collector in Madhya Pradesh issued a notice for schools to celebrate it and so on. There are a lot of independent and reliable references which prove the validity of these statements. This article must not be nominated for discussion just because the image of the initiator i.e. Asaram Bapu is under crisis. Wikipedia is a platform that depends on facts and notability of an article and this festival is being celebrated since more than 10 years in India and it's a compulsory program to attend for thousands of school students all over India. SukritiVarma (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is day that's being celebrated officially by the government now. This celebration is compulsory in schools as is evident by these references: ^[1]^[2] There are lot more such references, I don't see any valid reason why this page was nominated for deletion, it must be retained. SushasiniGupta (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your sources are only saying that this was a government action. Not every day propagated by the government needs to have their own article. Same way we have no article on "Samvidhan Hatya Diwas".[43] CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Worship Day is not just a government action, this is a festival that's quite widely accepted by the masses. Since this is a festival that celebrates emotional bond between parents and children, so people of all religion are accepting it. It cannot be compared with Samvidhan Hatya Diwas. Because this festival is celebrated by masses not only in India but in abroad as well.

1. Even Muslims are celebrating this day as Abba Ammi Ibadat Diwas [44]

2. Sanatan Dharam Sabha Celebrates “Matra Pitra Poojan Diwas” [45]

3. News coverage: More than 10,000 people celebrated this event in Kurla [46] SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The existence of this article, at the present moment, tantamounts to WP:SOAP. CharlesWain (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Both of the editors who voted for "keep" above are blatant WP:SPAs and have edited nothing outside this topic.[47][48] CharlesWain (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP: Neutral Point of View - Articles with reliable sources must be retained, even if the subject is controversial. Decisions in Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion discussions are determined by the strength of arguments based on policies, such as WP:Notability, rather than the edit count of participants. My reasoning highlights the independent cultural significance of Parents Worship Day and its coverage in reliable sources, demonstrating that the topic's notability extends beyond its association with its creator. SushasiniGupta (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use an AI platform to write AfD rationales, or copy basic AfD policies we should all already know. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any long lasting effect. INHERITED is fulfilled. The keep !votes are misleading and do not bring up any credible argument based on our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day has become a cultural event observed by various schools and communities, reflecting its relevance beyond its initial introduction. The day promotes values of respect and gratitude toward parents, which hold significance in societal traditions. Multiple independent sources have documented its observance, indicating it has received attention outside of its originator’s influence. Removing the article would overlook an established practice that resonates with many individuals and groups. I'mAll4 Wiki (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Per WP:DLC dislike for the subject or Dislike of the creator should not be reason for over-zealous article deletion, the notability of the article should be independently assessed. The nominator of this deletion lists down very plainly their dislike for creator, without arguing on quality or notability of article itself.

If we can find multiple secondary sources WP:DIVERSE covering this event outside any reference to its creator, this article should not be deleted

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE across years (even after presumed interest waning on creator) is another factor in favor of this article

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-jammu-redefines-the-day-as-mother-father-worship-day-2584739 authored by Ishfaq-ul-Hassan on DNA India
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/community/parents-worship-day-on-february-14-40462/ on The Tribune India

Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They merely noted the subject is controversial and has a shaky public image. Hardly anywhere near WP:IDLI and just stating a known fact. Nate • (chatter) 23:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MrSchimpf - i was also merely stating that deletion nomination did not highlight anything apart from creator image and per Wikipedia:INHERITED if creator’s notability cannot be used to lend notability to article, vice-versa also may not apply Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is at best a news release as it concerns celebration of this day by Satsang Prachar Sewa Mandal. Your second source does not even have author information and uses a byline, it's very clearly a press release per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asaram#Teachings and views, which is much clearer about the event than this collection of press releases barely holding this article together, and which has nothing at all (I can't even call it a false balance) from those who still wish to celebrate Valentine's Day and their opposition to this event. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you calling independent news coverages as press release?

If people in India are celebrating Parents Worship Day and government is also making the celebration compulsory in schools, that itself proves how widely this is being adopted in India. It's okay that other people in Western countries or even in India prefer celebrating Valentine's Day but that doesn't mean you are going to delete this page.SushasiniGupta (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stories specifically say that very few actual people wanted to celebrate it and it was forced upon them as an administrative or government mandate rather than an organic celebration. One of the stories is literally a state education minister putting out PR for the holiday to cover up the subject's various public issues. There are no counter-sources about how others feel about a holiday being forced upon them when another holiday has existed for hundreds of years to celebrate, and the vast majority of sources here talk about veneration of parents, even if they do completely unforgivable things, over loving others. There's no balance here to be found, just blatant PR for an effort to force a holiday upon people. Nate • (chatter) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you saying it's a forced one, there are lots of references where students became emotional and expressed gratitude for celebrating the unique bond that they have with parents.

Here is the quote from this reference [49]: "We invited our parents to the school and offered them flowers, worshipped them and finally sought their blessings," said Nishant Mishra, a Class-V student

"It was really a very touching moment for me. At least these children would learn how important parents are for them," Lipsa Parida, a mother of two boys.

Since these are quotes, now don't tell me these 5th class kids and their parents are doing PR. they are expressing what they felt and this is covered in news.

Even Muslims students were touched by this day, another quote[50] Aliya Pathan, a student, said, “In Islam, they say that jannat is beneath your parents’ feet and they should be treated with a lot of respect. So, we decided to celebrate Valentine’s Day by pledging to take care of our parents.” Umair Sheikh, another student, said, “Love comes in so many forms. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the detailed history and widespread adoption of Parents' Worship Day across various Indian states and institutions, the topic demonstrates cultural significance and societal impact. The celebration has been officially recognized by state governments such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Gujarat, and has gained support from educational institutions, NGOs, and community organizations. Independent media coverage highlights its relevance as a family-centric alternative to Valentine's Day. These factors satisfy Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines, making it an important cultural phenomenon worth retaining as an article. Exposethefacts (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gptzero result for this comment came to be 73% AI generated. Also real world notability=/= Wikipedia notability, you have to prove how this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines and standards on that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying after relisting) @Ratnahastin I was trying to broaden up on coverage and notability of event outside its creator, and while below is not comprehensive lists but could eaily find mentions on observance of this event/day at many other places below via simple search -
Parents Worship Day at a school in Jalandhar [51]

Parents Worship Day at a school [Kendriya Vidyalaya Cossipore] in Kolkata [52]

Parents Worship Day event at Rotoract Club of Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore [53] (p-175)

Parents Worship Day as one of the program arranged by National Association for Blind, India [54] (p-39)

Parents Worship Day by Sri Venkateswara Temple, Michigan, US [55]
Nisingh.8 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all you could find are some random no name schools celebrating this day, then I'm afraid you are only corroborating my point that real world notability=/=Wikipedia notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an article to be notable on Wikipedia, there should be reliable, independent sources, and there exists multiple such sources for Parents Worship Day page. Following are few of the reliable sources for your verification. FYI: These are from the most reliable news websites in India such as : BBC, Times of India etc.

It's official: Chhattisgarh renames Valentines Day as 'Matru-Pitru Diwas'. ^[1]

Parents Worship Day: After Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand To Implement Jailed Godman Asaram’s Advice ^[2]^[3]

Chhattisgarh makes Parents Worship Day a compulsory observance in schools on February 14 ^[4]

FYI: I hope you got a gist of how this is notable in terms of Wiki policies, please refer the article and go through all the 30+ references present there. This is a discussion not a list of references so I mentioned only 4. SushasiniGupta (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Real World notability and Wiki notability both criteria are met in this particular article since this festival is famous in real world and a lot of reliable ref links exist to suffice the notabilitySushasiniGupta (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents' Worship Day Wiki page is supported by independent, reliable and multiple reference links. This is a day that's celebrated across India since the theme has an emotional touch. That's the reason why even though the initiator Asaram Bapu's image is under question currently but this concept has been widely adopted even by government and general public. Just do a Google Search and see tons of references for the enormous acceptance and recognition of this festival.

Those trying to delete this article seem to be doing so just because of initiator's image as mentioned in the comment of the person who initiated the deletion process. But Wiki is not a place to target a page for deletion because the initiator is out of favor.

Let's say a person founded a company or was instrumental in initiating or promulgation of a concept like Tree Plantation Day etc. a concept that is getting wide recognition by public and founder was jailed later, would you delete the company's page as well? Wiki is not a place to target initiatives just because they are from someone whose actions you do not support. Seems an irrelevant discussion and people who saying delete are acting out of emotion not logic. Remember this festival is no longer only associated with its initiator Asaram Bapu, it's now a celebration across countless schools and colleges. Nandwanirajesh (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat this one more time; there is a non-existent balance with this article where it talks only in glowing terms about the holiday, its inventor, and how it's being used as an alternative to V-Day and being forced upon others without any question or criticism. Local school newsletters are not only non-notable, but also non-neutral, and the fact it is being made compulsory to celebrate when V-Day is a completely voluntary holiday needs to be elaborated on, and at this point this feels like an article that never has any intentions about talking about it neutrally. Finally, stating the inventor has some controversial views is not the reason for deletion here and is supported by BLP and will not be removed. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:SIGCOV sources found. I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted. Our notability guidelines are simple: it require multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject to meet notability or justify a stand-alone article. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 15:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There does not exist any valid reason why this deletion discussion was initiated. Initiator's image is irrelevant to the concept associated with this article. Especially when it's being widely adopted by students of various schools and colleges. There are multiple reliable and independent coverages of the day.^[5]^[6] Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are Godi media sources. First one is a promotional article while second one is about a proposal. Also, I think you should also describe why you never edited any other AfD before !voting on this one? - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apart from references already contained in the article, can find this topic being covered in WP:SECONDARY sources such as research papers^[7] which critically analyze the introduction of event and its relevance in South Asian culture among other things. As such find notability criteria met Naveentirthani (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But where does this source provide any coverage to this subject? Can you also tell why you never edited any AfD before this one? - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote from the International Journal of Postcolonial Studies: Kothari, R., & Shah, A. (2017). Dil Se: Love, Fantasy and Negotiation in Hindi Film Songs. Interventions, 19(4), 532–549. DOI: 10.1080/1369801X.2017.1294101 [56]

- "Francesca Orsini mentions that although romantic love – using either the English term or its Indian equivalent, prem – became an established ideal by the beginning of the twentieth century, the patriarchal system has made few allowances for it or the emergence of the modern couple (2006, 33). The substitution of Valentine’s Day with Parents’ Worship Day in the pamphlet above zones in on one of the deepest anxieties in South Asia: the supplanting of the family with the selfishness of the couple. The use of the Sanskrit words “Matr[u] DevoBhava” and “Pitr[u]DevoBhava”, followed by an English translation, is a conscious linguistic strategy to establish both the cultural continuity and antiquity of this goal."

If you wish to read download the complete journal, you may try this link: [57] or [58]

Apart from that, I am a contributor to this article, so it is obvious for me to participate in this ongoing discussion. I don't know why you are expecting me to participate in multiple AFD discussions in order to share my views here. I am an editor of this article and I think that reason is more than enough for justifying my participation in this discussion. Naveentirthani (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this it has become an official government recognized holiday in certain parts of India. That would seem encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of any "holiday" there. You are misrepresenting the source. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just the terminology difference, @4meter4 meant to say government recognized celebration. As mentioned in the source: The Rajasthan government decided to include this in the Department of Education’s school calendar from 2025 and it "must" be celebrated as Matri-Pitri Pujan Day. SushasiniGupta (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming in having never heard of this topic, and what an utter headscratcher. Some of these articles are bizarre. The India TV one has some of the strangest prose I've ever seen in what ostensibly is a news article but, perhaps because India is not my topic specialty, reads like The Onion: As per the latest reports the saffron outfit's leaders will be monitoring social networking sites too. Those posting love-you messages on social networking sites will be caught hold of and forced to tie the knot. The article as it stands does not seem to get at the reason for the existence of this observance and is laden with mostly trivial facts. The understanding the references are giving me is that this is an alternate observance favored by BJP-aligned education ministries in a handful of Indian states for religious reasons. That may not be enough to sustain an entire article and, with a handful of the relevant references, may be worth the merge to Asaram because this is clearly a plausible search term. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian news sources are absolutely horrible for establishing any form of notability. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA and Godi Media. Most of them do not even identify the reporter or author of the article they always tend to have generic bylines. This article is just a promotional POV fork of Asaram#Teachings and views where a more critical commentary exists. Even the users who are supporting keeping this article have not edited Wikipedia for months or years prior or are very inexperienced or have only edited Asaram topic area. This article was also a favourite target of a sockfarm in past too see [[59]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm familiar with NEWSORGINDIA. Really, once you peel back the layers of promotional "news" content, you have an observance that does exist and has been put on state school calendars, and that's about it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then let's focus on those references which are considered as WP:GREL by WP:RSPSOURCES

• BBC News: As per WP:RSPBBC, BBC sources are considered generally reliable:

This reference[60] has 'Parent's Worship Day' in India section.

•The Indian Express: WP:INDIANEXP states: The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.

Almost every year, this reliable news channel has covered Parents Worship Day grand celebrations or govt. guidelines:
In 2012: V-Day to be Matri-Pitra Divas in Chhattisgarh schools. Chief Minister Raman Singh announced that all government and private schools in Chhattisgarh will observe Parents Worship Day on February 14 every year. [61]

In 2015: Amdavadis celebrate Parents Worship Day.[62]

In 2017: Collector in Madhya Pradesh asks people to worship their parents on Valentine’s Day. This picture of govt. issued noticed is also attached in this news.[63]

In 2020: On Valentine’s Day, ‘Matru-Pitru Pujan Diwas’ for Gujarat schools as per District Educational Office circular.[64]

• The Atlantic: The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. It mentions - another Hindu group is once again running a campaign to replace Valentine’s Day with “Parents’ Worship Day”[65]

I have just mentioned a few of the sources which are WP:GREL and skipped a lot other references which are WP:MREL.

This list is more than enough to justify WP:Notability of this article. SushasiniGupta (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another random day that lacks sufficient notability. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer this list of WP:GREL references:[66] To list a few: [67][68][69] SushasiniGupta (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch^[8]^[9] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),^[10]^[11] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),^[12] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?

Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:

"In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;^[13] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;^[14] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Its-official-Chhattisgarh-renames-V-Day-as-Matru-Pitru-Diwas/articleshow/46151391.cms
^ https://www.outlookindia.com/national/parents-worship-day-after-chhattisgarh-jharkhand-to-implement-jailed-godman-asar-news-305893
^ https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-38956151
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20131018015852/http://www.merinews.com/article/chhattisgarh-makes-parents-worship-day-a-compulsory-observance-in-schools-on-february-14/15881586.shtml%26cp
^ https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/what-is-parents-worship-day-and-why-it-is-celebrated-on-valentine-s-day-in-india-1768935-2021-02-13
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/parents-worship-day-on-feb-14-from-next-session/articleshow/107213588.cms
^ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1294101
^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. While this subject was biggest in the pre- and early-web days (BBS chat, IRC, etc.), emotes are still part of many current chat systems. Any of the many books about internet chat would have a bit about this. It's not an overlap with emoji, which are graphical emoticons, not emotes. It's possible there's not a whole lot to say about this, in which case a merge probably makes sense, but I'm not sure where to merge to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI command

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT and WP: NOTTEXTBOOK. I also can't find any sources that would make the article read like an encyclopedia page, as opposed to technical documentation.

There was an AfD for this article in 2005, that ended with a result of No Consensus. Nearly every Keep vote in that AfD reads like an example from WP: ATA. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's an overview, no manual or textbook. Could be improved, of course. --Zac67 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously telling me that a bloated 191-line entry table of codes is an "overview"? This is a glorified manual. I also don't understand your handwaving about how the article "could be improved", given that there is a dearth of sources about this subject that could be used to make this article encyclopedic. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to SCSI#SCSI command protocol. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to SCSI#SCSI command protocol per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: as suggested in the two !votes above mine seems fine, and instruction/technical manual isn't really helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: as an AtD BJackJS talk 19:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically the whole article is to say that they entered one person in that event and they lost. No GNG sources, just one database type source for that factoid. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Qatar, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This type of article/list has very little potential for growrth, and is at best appropriate for an overview along the lines of Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships. It doesn't exist, so a merge isn't possible at the time. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships and repurpose/expand the article under that broader topic per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stuart Lewis Yates

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Article is written in a promotional tone and sources provided do not discuss Lewis in any significant way, but focus on the company (and in some the company itself is only mentioned in the article). ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United Kingdom, and Scotland. ... discospinster _talk 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reliable Sources: Since the original comment, several additional reliable sources have been included, including articles from Screen Daily, which discuss The Mise En Scène Company's involvement in international film markets and provide specific insights into the company's activities under Paul Stuart Lewis Yates' leadership. This coverage in trade publications highlights Yates’ influence on MSC's growth and market strategies, directly linking his role to the company's achievements in the independent film industry.
Notability through Independent Coverage: Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP ) requires subjects to be covered by reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. With trade magazines like Screen Daily now among the references, Yates meets this criterion, as the sources highlight MSC’s market presence and contributions to film sales, directly attributing these developments to Yates’ leadership. Coverage from sources of this caliber signals Yates' relevance within the industry.
Significant Industry Contributions (WP ): According to Wikipedia’s Notability for Biographies (WP ), individuals who have significantly contributed to their field are considered notable. Yates’ work in expanding MSC’s presence at major markets like Cannes and the European Film Market shows his influence in promoting independent films globally. As the founder and executive, he has shaped MSC’s strategies, making him a notable figure in the film sales industry.
Neutral Tone and Factual Focus: The article has been carefully revised to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone, focusing on verifiable facts about Yates’ career and impact. By including only sourced information about his contributions, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and avoids promotional language.

Demosthenes1999 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply looks AI-generated, please let's keep the discussion among humans. AI answers tend to be severely bloated, as the one above indeed is. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that's semi correct, I had AI re-format my argument points to make them more coherent but also to save time. AI edited but not generated. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: a small section to the Mise en Scene company article would seem fine. I don't think the individual is notable without the company. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds good, but I don't think saying someone is not notable when you remove the thing that makes them notable makes any sense, like I don't think The king is notable without his crown sort of thing, just doesn't really make sense. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, the article is completely fine for EnWiki. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content to The Mise En Scene Company. No evidence of independent notability, a check shows all online sources are for activity done by the company with him as a signatory or spokesperson, which speaks to his importance within the company but not to any wider relevance outside it, so a brief mini-bio in the company article is both logical and sufficient. Crowsus (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense I can’t really argue against that specifically. I made the profile based on emerging influence and potential trajectory. Mainly from my interest in a couple of their films which I want to make profiles for eventually, the True Don Quixote and Anchorage I figured it matches with past precedents on wikipedia for founders and having a separate profile means it can be tracked and updated a bit easier. I have a friend who works at screen who says they’ve got some good projects on the horizon. I can’t argue against merging exactly though cause that is in line with policy but I’m obviously biased cause I wrote it lol. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

It should be highlighted that Paul Yates is recognized in sources as the founder of the company, a role far more significant than that of a mere signatory or spokesperson as suggested above.

This distinction aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines on “biographies of living persons” and “businesspeople,” where founders with documented influence, leadership, or innovation in their fields have greater justification for a separate article than someone solely acting in a representative capacity. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it says "documented". This means that there must be reliable sources significantly discussing him and his influence, leadership, or innovation (or even his emerging influence or potential trajectory). At the moment there are none, only sources noting that he is the founder of the company. (Also you have recommended "keep" twice, when you should only do so once, so I will strike out the first "keep" as redundant.) ... discospinster _talk 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking the keep, sorry trying to get used this chat room format. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

used to Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the articles discuss the company the person founded, which can still contribute to demonstrating their notability, but clutching on straws by that point though. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two guardian articles as extra references, the two Guardian articles are reviewing films represented by MSC and do not directly mention Paul Yates or the company, but they demonstrate MSC’s significant activity in the U.K. This activity occurred under Yates' leadership as founder and executive, indirectly highlighting his role in the company’s reach and success. While this may not fully satisfy WP for a standalone biography, it underscores the impact of MSC, which should be taken into account when evaluating Yates’ contributions and emerging influence in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. The references in the article are primarily about the organization and do not mention him at all. The only information about him is one .gov listing as a company officer and his own writing. Lamona (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the "delete" rationale. The coverage from Screen Daily is significant, as it is a recognized authority in the film industry. The article specifically mentions Paul Yates in the context of founding his company and details how it was formed, thus establishing his role and relevance. This aligns with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

If additional sources are required, I am happy to contribute further research to strengthen the article. However, I believe the Screen Daily coverage alone demonstrates notability, as it is both independent and detailed. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very short article (14 sentences) in which a goodly portion is quotes from him. It is not enough to establish notability. Lamona (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if none of the sources show significant coverage, I’m not sure what purpose a merger would serve. Many filmmakers, including my partner of 17 years, have had films screened at Cannes; it’s not automatically notable. I’m looking at his posters right now on the wall. It’s not a big deal. Bearian (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to clarify that Paul Yates is not a filmmaker. His notability comes from his work as the founder of The Mise En Scène Company (MSC), as highlighted in independent, reliable sources like Screen Daily. These sources discuss his role in establishing and shaping MSC, which directly addresses Wikipedia's notability criteria. Comparing him to filmmakers misses the point of the article, which is focused on his contributions as a business founder and media professional. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately this is similar to a high school head teacher or a university professor - the organisation is notable and they avean important, pivotal, irreplaceable role in the organisation as well as a figurehead so are mentioned, quoted and pictured frequently in connection with that, but unless they have something making them out individually from the many other professors / headteachers / business founders / media professionals, there isn't enough to justify a biography article here. Crowsus (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the analogy of a head teacher or university professor. The distinction is that Paul Yates founded The Mise En Scène Company, which inherently ties the company’s notability to his individual activities and vision. Unlike a head teacher, who operates within an existing framework, Paul Yates created the framework itself and has been directly involved in shaping the company’s growth and success. Reliable sources, such as Screen Daily, reference his specific actions, including founding the company and negotiating deals with notable entities like Signature Entertainment, 1091, and Bulldog Entertainment. This demonstrates that his individual contributions are pivotal and worthy of recognition on their own merits. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources for him outside the sphere of Mise en Scene? Crowsus (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are government records listing his name and involvement with companies, as well as a published piece in an online travel magazine. While these might not independently establish notability, they contribute to demonstrating his activity and public presence in professional contexts beyond MSC. However, the core of his notability lies in the independent recognition of his foundational and operational role at MSC, which aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable business figures.

While the majority of the independent coverage focuses on Paul Yates' role with The Mise En Scène Company, this is not unusual for business founders whose notability is tied to their entrepreneurial achievements. The sources, such as Screen Daily, are significant and reliable, explicitly highlighting his contributions, such as founding MSC and negotiating deals with major companies. This level of individual coverage goes beyond simply being "associated with" an organization. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about additional sources, but I strongly believe Yates is well within the guidelines for notability. The key sources, such as Screen Daily, Deadline, Variety all provide independent, significant coverage of his role in founding and shaping The Mise En Scène Company, which directly satisfies Wikipedia’s requirements for business figures. While it’s true that he may not have an overwhelming number of sources outside MSC, the ones that exist are reliable and substantive enough to demonstrate his notability as a business founder.

To compare him to a head teacher or university professor misses the point: Yates is not just a figurehead or a leader within an existing organization; he created the organization and has had a direct impact on its growth and success. His role in negotiating high-profile deals with companies like Signature Entertainment and Bulldog Entertainment further distinguishes him.

It seems we are quibbling over the technicalities of what constitutes "significant" coverage, but I believe that within the context of Wikipedia’s guidelines, the available coverage clearly supports his notability. At this point, the focus should be on the substantive and independent recognition of his work, which is the primary measure of notability. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to focus on one of the sources the Screen Daily article provides clear evidence of Paul S.L. Yates’ notability through his active role in founding and shaping Mise en Scène Company (MSC). The article highlights Yates as a former Devilworks acquisitions coordinator, which establishes his background and expertise in the film industry. It further discusses how he and his co-founder met during their time working as night-shift porters at The Ritz London which is mad, and how, after being furloughed during the pandemic, they spent significant time developing MSC. This narrative not only emphasizes Yates' entrepreneurial initiative in response to the challenges of the pandemic but also underscores the active role he played in crafting MSC’s identity and strategy. The article also references the company's ethos, noting that Yates’ values of creativity, integrity, and passion were integral to its creation. This foundational leadership, along with the decision to launch MSC during a difficult period, positions Yates as a key figure behind the company’s success, demonstrating his independent notability in the film industry. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no issue whatsoever with your sincerity or tone, due to three replies - which are basically repeating yourself - to one question, at this point I refer you to WP:BLUDGEON. Crowsus (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI, I didn't know about that thank you for the referral, I'll keep it mind in the future thanks. :) Demosthenes1999 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge/Redirect to The Mise En Scene Company per WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subaqueous volcano

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

Synonym of submarine volcano, I propose that this article is turned into a REDIRECT which leads to Submarine volcano. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "submarine volcano" refers to volcanoes under the ocean whereas "subaqueous volcano" is used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes.

Volcanoguy 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. For illustration, see the editorial and pretty much every contribution in this FES special issue on subaqueous volcanism. If the article is meant to refer to lacustrine volcanism, which to some degree seems to be a recognized sub-category, then it will have to be renamed; and reworked, because it currently is happily covering submarine volcanism - e.g., those Honshu deposits are submarine, and there is a section "Seafloor exploration". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, this is supported by all the literature I found, hence why I nominated the article. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I never claimed subaqueous is only used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes. A subaqueous volcano is simply a volcano that formed underwater, thus I wouldn't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano since submarine volcanoes are basically a type of subaqueous volcano along with lacustrine volcanoes. Volcanoguy 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question.The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. If the submarine volcano is a subset of Subaqueous volcano why are we merging Subaqueous volcano to submarine volcano? It should be the other way around with subaqueous volcano being the parent article. Obviously the subaqueous volcano article would need substantial rewriting, but as the umbrella term it should take precedent over "submarine volcano" which could be a subsection inside the parent article.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a hierarchy persperctive, I think it would make more sense. But on the other hand, almost all subaqueous volcanoes appear to be submarine (not surprising), so while it's not the technical parent term, it is by far the most frequently encountered one. There are presumably cases where we put the main article at the dominant sub-topic rather than at the infrequent parent topic? Eh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae Got you. It might do a service to the world though to merge submarine volcano to Subaqueous volcano because I am seeing the fallacy that subaqueous volcanos are different than submarine volcanos on layman discussion threads and even the kidspedia webpage for volcanos which made the same claim as Volcanoguy. It's clearly a place of confusion that is a common error among amateur volcano enthusiasts. If our coverage merges to subaqueous volcano and presents submarine volcanos as a type of subaqueous volcano (and we could also cover lacustrine volcanism on that page) we would be the first encyclopedia to help solve that widely held errata among the general public.4meter4 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 (talk · contribs) I don't know which of my claims you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano. I think those involved in this AfD misinterpreted my first comment as meaning subaqueous volcanoes occur only in lakes which is not what I meant. Volcanoguy 22:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(noted --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per above. Procyon117 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Laszlo Schüszler

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

Non-notable director. All sources are database listings of his films, and no reliable sources about him are found online. Previously draftified/deleted twice. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His IMDb biography is much better than the English wiki page. Those searching for sources should look at that web page for clues in searching. If the awards can be verified to independent refs he may be notable, I have not had any luck finding sources so... fails WP:SIGCOV]. I suspect offline sources or sources behind paywalls in Norwegian likely exist.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was also unable to find any non-user generated and non-database listings for his films, and for him himself. It's worth noting that the IMDb Trivia section for his film Bernadotte, Louise & Napoleon states it was written by Schüszler himself. Tolozen (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with previous points made.

Thesaltydispatcher (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per points above. Also a poorly written article. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is currently at WP:CP. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer shot

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; sources for this are not apparent and if they were, this appears to be just a minor film technique. "Noddy" already covers use in news and interviews. There are currently no references. Nominating for AFD rather than boldly merging to see if there's any writing on buffer shots that I am missing. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) -- Dr Greg talk 02:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They’re both editing techniques using insertion of material but their respective goals are opposite (variety/continuity), so merging is not necessary and might be confusing, don’t you think? -Mushy Yank. 05:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s covered in reliable sources so I cannot see why it should be merged into another page. -Mushy Yank. 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. While there have been several sources added, the entire article is a few sentences and could easily be merged into the article. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could, but why should it be merged? -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank The article is currently a WP:DICDEF. DICDEF articles are not allowed, so we usually handle content like this inside glossaries. The encyclopedia won't lose any of this content it will just be housed in a different spot to comply with DICDEF. The cats can even remain on the redirect page so we won't lose navigation there either. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per Dr. Greg. This is a very closely related idea and could easily be accommodated there. I'd go so far as to argue that a buffer shot is a particular case of a cutaway. WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here, and I think this merge target makes the most sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per the comment by Mushy Yank. Buffer shots have a different goal and merging would lead to confusion. Glossary of motion picture terms is the better target as I already indicated above.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the three related articles here are Buffer shot, Cutaway (filmmaking), and Nod shot. A nod shot is a kind of buffer shot which is a kind of cutaway. For example, see the first paragraph of Cutaway:

"The most common use of cutaway shots in dramatic films is to adjust the pace of the main action, to conceal the deletion of some unwanted part of the main shot, or to allow the joining of parts of two versions of that shot. For example, a scene may be improved by cutting a few frames out of an actor's pause; a brief view of a listener can help conceal the break. Or the actor may fumble some of his lines in a group shot; rather than discarding a good version of the shot, the director may just have the actor repeat the lines for a new shot, and cut to that alternate view when necessary."

Which basically describes a buffer shot. Commenters above have argued cutaways are mostly not meant for this, but according to the article itself, they often are. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is "a shot that interrupts the main action of a film or television program to take up a related subject or to depict action supposed to be going on at the same time as the main action" by Merriam Webster. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) given that the article content is already there, there just aren't any citations. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.@Mrfoogles, 35.139.154.158, Mushy Yank, Dr Greg A buffer shot is not a cutaway and a cutaway is not a buffer shot. They both use film splicing, but they are two different film editing ideas. I would support them being together in a larger article on film splicing, but not together under the name cutaway. Likewise nod shot could be included in the film splicing article.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent David Fraser

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added some references to this previously-unreferenced BLP of an actor. These are passing mentions, however. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Washington. Tacyarg (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nominator, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Fraser, just cast listings and brief mentions in movie reviews. The closest to any biographical information was a Seattle Times movie review that added "Bellingham-raised" to his name (because it's local). (ProQuest 385333344) Not a notable actor at this time. Schazjmd (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, often credited as the shorter name Brent Fraser. Satisfies NACTOR with significant roles in Wild Orchid II: Two Shades of Blue (as Brent Fraser, and Dead & Breakfast. (When I am able I will add sourcing that verifies that). Mentions in reviews is an important part of judging actors. They act in things. That's what they are known for. That's the sort of thing that should be in encyclopaedias. Who'd they play and in what. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I’m hoping for the promised citations, but not holding my breath for a week. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally managed to get some sources onto the page. then there is also [70], [71], [72] and [73] (last has a quote from New York Times). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the many added sources on the article and the links to dedicated articles above I think there is enough for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Referencing has significantly improved since the time of nomination. Meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since addition of sources, passes WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Community of Camden, NJ

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

This appears to be a nonnotable topic cobbled together from discussions of Black organizations in Camden. There doesn't appear to be a "The Black Community of Camden" that this is talking about. Appears to be WP:SYNTH. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the original article text was more a list of organizations, I have added some references discussing African-American history in the city, and it seems like there could be enough to sustain an article. This is not even touching more modern history, as there seems to be quite a bit of coverage around Camden's police department and its restructuring and how that relates to Black Lives Matter protests. I do agree that the sections focusing on organizations could be trimmed or deleted. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/undo split Yes, Camden, New Jersey, was way too long and detailed in many sections, with paragraphs about non-notable non-profits, youth groups, and restaurants that do not typically have this type of coverage in other city articles. But that does not mean this content should have just been split into other pages that keep the same problems. The same goes for Redevelopment of Camden, New Jersey, Arts and entertainment in Camden, New Jersey, Hispanic and Latino community of Camden, New Jersey, and other pages this user just split from the main article. I suggest undoing/remerging all of these edits and then trimming the outdated news, irrelevant name-dropping, and other unencyclopedic details (there is a lot though). Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this article and the other ones listed. Many of these are probably notable topics, but I agree that they are unready for the mainspace in their current state. For example, I found an article on the Black power movement in Camden and one on redevelopment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to African Americans in New Jersey.-KH-1 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been significantly improved since the time of nomination by ForsythiaJo. Not really seeing a need to merge or draftify this page. Meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Desk_2024_u886-1] "Adani University inks MoU with VJoist Innovation". Deccan Chronicle. 27 February 2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Chhapia_2024_a342-2] Chhapia, Hemali (23 February 2024). "MOU to collaborate on academics and research". The Times of India. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[The_Times_of_India_2022_a688-3] "Adani University Granted University Status By Assembly". The Times of India. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Standard_2022_n540-4] "Adani Group receives approval to set up university in Ahmedabad". Business Standard. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Bhaskar_2022_p._20-5] Bhaskar, R.N. (2022). Gautam Adani: Reimagining Business in India and the World. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 20. ISBN 978-93-5492-763-8. Retrieved 22 March 2024.

[Anon._g662-6] "UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 25.01.2023" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2024.

[7] "Adani University Holds First Convocation — Preeti Adani Emphasises Innovation, Research Focus". NDTV Profit. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[8] ""Chairman's vision to create university of excellence", Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ANI News. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[9] "Adani University Felicitates Four Gold Medalists, 69 MBA, MTech Post Graduates At Inaugural Convocation". News24. 6 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[10] "Adani University inks pact with VJoist Innovation to transform Indian academic arena". Bizzbuzz. 5 March 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[11] "Adani University accorded status by Gujarat Legislative Assembly". Ahmedabad Mirror. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[12] "Adani University Holds First Convocation; 69 Postgraduates Honored". G R Mukesh. Free Press Journal. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[i743-13] "Chairman's vision is to create university of excellence, says Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ETEducation.com. 7 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[u546-14] Focus, ABP Live (6 July 2022). "Adani University Hosts Global Education Forum". ABP Live. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[a912-15] "Adani University committed to shape new India: Dr Priti Adani". The Hans India. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[x493-16] Sharma, S. (2022). ProjectX India: 15th April 2022 edition. ProjectX India. Sandeep Sharma. p. 47. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[17] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/ranchi/government-school-students-to-worship-parents-in-jharkhand/story-mBGxvrH4HW33cOOZarLSSL.html

[18] ttps://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/madhya-pradesh-chhindwara-collector-asks-people-to-worship-their-parents-on-valentines-day/545893/

[19] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Its-official-Chhattisgarh-renames-V-Day-as-Matru-Pitru-Diwas/articleshow/46151391.cms

[20] ttps://www.outlookindia.com/national/parents-worship-day-after-chhattisgarh-jharkhand-to-implement-jailed-godman-asar-news-305893

[21] ttps://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-38956151

[22] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20131018015852/http://www.merinews.com/article/chhattisgarh-makes-parents-worship-day-a-compulsory-observance-in-schools-on-february-14/15881586.shtml%26cp

[23] ttps://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/what-is-parents-worship-day-and-why-it-is-celebrated-on-valentine-s-day-in-india-1768935-2021-02-13

[24] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/parents-worship-day-on-feb-14-from-next-session/articleshow/107213588.cms

[25] ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1294101

[26] Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.

[27] Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[28] "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[29] Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[30] Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[31] Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.

[32] Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]