Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 24	September 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mašićka Šagovina killings

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

The entire article is based on claims of Savo Štrbac ('Veritas') published in the Serbian newspaper Politika. Neither of these are particular pillars of objectivity, which is documented already.

It seems plausible that something like what is described in the article happened, and it also seems plausible that a few people lied or embellished the truth to a few favorably inclined reporters and got them to publish something that sells well in their target market.

The only other citations are to Večernji list, which may well be slanted in the other direction. There's one link to a 1992 article in The Baltimore Sun which I can't access.

So there doesn't seem to be coherent independent confirmation for this narrative from conventionally reliable sources - I couldn't find it in the archive of the Serb National Council which documents a lot of these kinds of killings. I searched the ICTY website, and this place was only mentioned in seemingly unrelated witness transcripts. Balkan Insight has a couple of stories about exhumations in 2013 and 2016 in the area, but makes no claims of massacres. I also checked the Documenta – Center for Dealing with the Past website, and other Croatian websites, and there's just basically nothing, other than war stories from veterans. Usually there should be at least something, even if the information was being suppressed by interested parties.

We shouldn't be parroting such serious claims until there's at least some verification. It doesn't actually do justice to the memory of any people unlawfully killed there to post arbitrary unverifiable stuff about it.

Can anyone else find anything, or do we delete this? --Joy (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Croatia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Joy (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Baltimore Sun link works just fine. It mentions a massacre in this village at the same time with most of the same details. So probably was a thing that happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternatives

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

When I stumbled across this article, I was quickly struck by how many of the cited sources were the Socialist Alternatives magazine itself, making up more than half of the cited sources. Then I noticed quite a few citations were to self-published wordpress blogs, which wasn't encouraging. The Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations doesn't give much more detail other than it being the short-lived British section of the IRMT, and gestures at a couple other organisations it may have been connected to.

What is left over then are mostly sources about Keir Starmer's relationship to the magazine. When I looked up Socialist Alternatives on Google Scholar, I likewise only found biographies of Starmer. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of the group/magazine itself.

Given all this, I'm unconvinced that this group/publication is independently notable. Its only significant coverage in reliable sources are about its connection with someone that became important decades after his involvement with the group. As such, I'm proposing it for deletion; I'm not sure whether the articles on the IRMT or Starmer himself would be more appropriate redirect targets. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Social science, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negros Oriental (disambiguation)

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

All terms are WP:PARTIAL. In other words, none of these would be confused with "Negros Oriental". HueMan1 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not serve as a disambiguation page. Negros (disambiguation) already holds the main items of confusion. CMD (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid dab. This dab is like having a "California (disambiguation)" page that lists "California State Capitol", "California State Controller", and "California Golden Bears". Clearly the result of not understanding the principles of disambiguation.—Alalch E. 10:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naygel Coffie

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

Created in a different time when national team play was within the guidelines; it is not anymore and I was not able to find a single article to contribute to passing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see much change since the last AfD. It still a case of WP:TOOSOON. The references are merely passing. - The9Man ^Talk 09:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Yumisaki

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

With a career consisting of 15 matches in the lower divisions of Japan, I see the chances of fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as slim. Sources in Ja:wiki are about participating in tryouts that didn't pan out as well as his team finishing second in a university championship. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiputradila Saswadimata

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

With only 474 minutes of playtime in Singapore under his belt, I don't see any hope of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Bushi

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

Modest career with 81 minutes in Albania’s highest league and some seasons in the semi-pro seocnd tier with 1–7 games in each. Considering the minor accomplishments, this good source is not enough to push him over the WP:GNG bar. A further source search only yielded stat sites, social media and namesakes. I don’t know what this is, though, it’s a poem marked as humor. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrii Palekha

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. APK hi :-) (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi_Hasan_Khan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mehdi Hasan Khan

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

I'm the subject in the article. I regard myself as a non-notable and private person. There are millions of people who create open-source software and that shouldn't be the bar for having a biography on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this page contains personal information on me, and my family members without any citation/source and violates their privacy as well. Mehdihasankhan (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the spouse and child's names. APK hi :-) (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table of bases

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

This table of base conversions has been unsourced since its creation in 2003. Most of its bases are themselves non-notable and its digit systems for them unstandardized. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository for mathematical tables, which in general have become obsolete since the widespread availability of computers. Some entries in Category:Mathematical tables have prose and references; this one is pure calculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's fine information for a handbook but not an encyclopedia. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose that it would be possible to have an encyclopedia article about the topic of base-conversion tables. When historically were they introduced? When did people stop bothering to print them? But this is not that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's absolutely no use for most of the bases, and anybody who uses one of the few useful ones can do the calculations easily enough. Who would ever need to count in base 5? Our future alien overlords? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful to have a table so you do not have to do the calculations, if it is ever needed. Kayn bred 00:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSUSEFUL: All encyclopedic content should be useful to someone, but not all content useful to someone is encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter as an aside, would a potential metric/rule of thumb on something like this is if Wolfram Alpha could generate it, at least for "purely factual calculations" i.e. not stats? (also take this as a delete vote) Akaibu (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Christian75 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Which of those have a table like this? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, SIGCOV doesn't exist in the local language, unfortunately. Courtesy ping @Wikibear47: to ask if they found coverage in local languages? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not really. Its a pretty obscure place with not much coverage. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find independent reliable coverage Wikibear47 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

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

After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.

Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
- Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
- Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.

Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
- Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
- Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.

Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
- Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
- Sportskeeda seems to fail WP:RSP, and can be seen here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sportskeeda.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.

Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.

On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. Discuss renaming on TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not every apparent franchise or film series needs to have its own article, and all of this information is just a compiled WP:CONTENTFORK of the individual articles which can easily be accessed by the appropriate lead mentions, categories, and navbox template for this material. Because this "franchise" lacks significant coverage from reliable sources (and the WP:RECENT upcoming prequel series not really adding much else in addition to a TV movie, 1 feature film, and the 2 novels), there is really nothing this article can add that is not already adequately covered by the corresponding articles themselves. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. As for the set index idea, I would suggest to WP:Blow it up and start over for that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me this nomination reeks of being a continuation of Andrzejbanas problems with similar articles such as Universal Monsters. ★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Civility, comment on the content. Not how many you feel about an editor. @StarTrekker: Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is a continuation of a problematic pattern of behavior on your part.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm breaking rules, present it. I've made my points here and if you address them directly, we can probably work it out. Not sure what you want and it specifically asks to not makes comments like this during these discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Universal Monsters is a more established brand in its own right than a Rosemary's Baby franchise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources to establish its notability. Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick:, its not a discussion on notability, it's a discussion of having enough content about the franchise as a whole, not individual works, which is currently the issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page you certainly seemed to speak of it as a notability issue.★Trekker (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notability issue in the sense there is no significant coverage of the topic specifically. Trekker, I am encouraging you to contribute, but please address my issues, but as I've asked you at least twice ( here & here). Comment on the content, not perceived intentions from a user. Per WP:CIVIL (specifcally WP:ICA) "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" are against the rules. I've asked you three times to not do this with me. I have and can work with you and others, so please contribute to the topic instead of attacks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing uncivil about what I wrote whatsoever.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up how I'm potentially contradicting myself. May I ask what you meant by this to clarify? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "franchise" enough. Plus one forthcoming. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: the deletion suggestion is not enough that it exists, the commentary is about if there is enough discussion on whether there is enough signifigant coverage of the topic as a franchise, which this topic fails per the discussion above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As there has been votes, but little discussion. I'm going to bring up the essay WP:THREE. This is not wikipedia standard, but I think it will help me address what I'm trying to get across, specifically reading WP:SIGCOV and understanding it, and lastly it suggests after to "Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing.". While the editors above have commented that there are "more than enough sources" or simply ""franchise" enough", they did not seem to address the points I was trying to make. On that, I would welcome @Mushy Yank:, @Hyperbolick:, @StarTrekker:, @Dimadick:, and @Trailblazer101: (even though they seem to follow my train of thought, they should be invited to discuss) to come forward and show me how the sources or content follows the WP:SIGCOV rules, specifically ones that "address the topic directly and in detail." per WP:SIGCOV. This is in terms of discussing it as a franchise, over individual films, which is my bigger issue. All other comments and editors are welcome of course.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- People have already expressed their opinions on this.★Trekker (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it's been re-listed for more discussion. So I'm giving them the option to discuss. Trekker, this is the fourth time I'm asking, please discuss the content, not actions of other users. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'Opus Dei: enquête sur le "monstre"

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

The only usable source here is La Libre, which is not sigcov and is not enough. Found 1 other journal source that looks good (though I question its independence). Redirect to author Patrice de Plunkett? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a number of reviews and coverage in French, until we can say otherwise I think we can assume that there is enough coverage outside the english language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back No reliable, significant ones to my awareness. None found in a search of French media sources either. Every French source used here is a blog, or passing mention. Or has no independence from the Opus Dei, which obviously has a COI here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, the sources used inline are linking to the ones in the further reading. These sources are four interviews with blogs, all affiliated with Da Vinci Code conspiracies or the Opus Dei, and the brief La Libre mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There doesn't seem to be any coverage in French... I tried the title with "critique" or "revue critique"... you can get a thousand places to buy it, see where it's held in libraries... This was all I could find that even mentions it [1]... The subject of Ops Dei is mentioned here, but not specifically about the book [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b For future reference the word usually used for (well, some, typically academic reviews) book reviews in French is compte rendu. There is one review I found while searching that phrase but I think it's from an Opus Dei affiliated publication so questionable independence. Even if its not, it's only one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction... I'm not using my French as much as I should, it gets jumbled with the English in my head. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading here [3], but there isn't much coverage of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on a redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could redirect to the author, his name comes up enough in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IronFX

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks independent coverage outside of WP:TRADES. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verum Coin

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

No evidence of coverage in real media. The Guardian article, for example, does not mention the article subject. I'd almost A7 it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal potatoes

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

This is one of very few pages which soft redirect to Wikibooks and the only such page about a food item. Besides this isn't a famous dish either. Kumar Dayal (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kumar Dayal (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing coalition (Italy)

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

A very weird incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB). (1) There is no general/international Left-wing coalition dab page where this could be merged, and I can't find other WP pages listing left-wing coalitions. (2) Maybe there is potential for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article like Left-wing politics in Croatia, but the notability of the topic is unclear: There is no interwiki link (including Italian); List of political parties in Italy mentions "left-wing" once, and List of political coalitions in Italy none. So: Should this page even exist? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not technically "create" the article, it was created [4] by @Nick.mon: when there was a coalition of left-wing parties in Sicily which eventually became Free and Equal (Italy) and thus redirected there. It wasn't accurate since there are/were other coalitions before and after. I wouldn't mind a WP:BROADCONCEPT article or maybe something like Centre-right coalition (Italy) (the latter would have the problem that multiple coalition compete, in 2018 there were three coalitions) Braganza (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jammu (1808)

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

KM Panikkar is the only reliable source presented here. Autar Singh Sandhu is not a reliable source as there is only one book that can be traced to him which was written in 1935; there are zero mentions of his educational credentials, bibliography, or reviews of scholarly work available, and he was deprecated by an admin in the RSN-[5]. The link to GULAB SINGH (1792-1857) is broken. Panikkar does make some mention of this battle (in page 15 and 16), but the information is not sufficient enough to warrant an article.

Note: Two Sikh nationalist sockmasters have been undermining my AFDs, one is the Truthfindervert, the second is an unrelenting sockmaster who has been stalking me for 3 years now-HaughtonBrit. His two most recent sockpuppets, Alvin1783 and Festivalfalcon873 were sabotaging my AFDs and making multiple votes in AFDs to retain articles which aggrandized their religion. Even after their blocks, HaughtonBrit has been continuing his campaign against me-here he deleted my PROD; 2 admins have said that this was clearly HaughtonBrit block evading-[6] and [7]. Even after that, he didn't stop and made an illegitimate vote in my AFD-[8]. Please be weary of any suspicious new/burner accounts or proxies who vote here as they are almost certainly going to be HaughtonBrit. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please keep comments reserved to discussing the article, its sources and notablity and not about other editors who may or may not be socks. Not every editor who disagrees with you is a sock or is trying to sabotage a discussion. Please refocus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews University Canoe Club

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The most significant source among the references is the two-minute BBC clip, where the club was mentioned in passing in an episode of a TV series about the east coast of Scotland. This university sports club lacks the sort of in-depth, national-level coverage required for WP:ORG. I had boldly redirected this to University of St Andrews Athletic Union, but this was revereted. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Scotland. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The passing reference is as much about St Andrews university as the canoe club. It tells us almost nothing about the club. Individual university clubs and societies of a University student body are rarely notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Global

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

The primary citations center around the IPO listing and fundraising efforts. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. At the time of this nomination, an agency had withdrawn a credit rating, and no analyst reports existed on the web. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darpan Sanghvi

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore, Maharashtra, Spain, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edelyne Mia Martanegara

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

The subject generally fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:BIO requirements. The only notable achievement is winning a local beauty pageant, and all available references revolve solely around this accomplishment, possibly WP:SINGLEEVENT. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa

AfDs for this article:

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

Thus has already been deleted four times and repeatedly recreated with unsatisfactory sourcing. I think it needs to be salted. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibayo-Tipas

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

We have a consensus that barangays are not automatically or generally notable. Individually they may be, but this one doesn’t seem to be. The sourcing is extremely thin and contrary to what the “expand article” template suggests the article can’t be expanded from Tagalog as the Tagalog article has a single source. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Moncino Musachi

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

Weird bio. Assuming the person existed, the quotation contained in the article isn’t about them. Also, since practically nothing is known about them, they would not be notable in any case, and the article could be redirected. But the content of this article doesn’t agree with the information in Voisava Kastrioti, and neither if the two sources cited appear to me to mention the subject. So it looks like either a hoax of some very stretchy OR. Mccapra (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000

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

Non-notable defunct radio station. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Andorra, and France. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils:, I disagree with you. I think the article about Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000 deserves to stay because the topic is notable due to the station being one of the main peripheric radio stations of France. It's part of the radio history. Universalis (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Universalis: It's good you express an opinion here but could you please provide evidence of its notability that supports your claims, per WP:N? This will help the decision making process. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, for editors arguing to Keep, you need to highlight sources in the article or that you have located that can help establish GNG notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for ["Radio Océan" "Atlantic 2000" -wikipedia] in google news and google books yielded nothing indepth. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Deus

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

Non-notable rugby player. No sigcov. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Cabrils (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Rugby World Cup squads#Uruguay – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future notability can't be ruled out, so I support a redirect. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicas Terremoto del Folklore

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

Non-notable music band. fails WP:BAND. Cabrils (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article already includes one Spanish-language reference, https://rpp.pe/musica/conciertos/chicas-terremoto-del-folklore-parten-de-gira-a-chile-noticia-204114 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sada-e-Umeed

AfDs for this article:

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

Faila NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. This was an AfD'd in 2020 that closed as non-consensus. The only vote to keep the article had a counterargument that wasn't addressed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gillespie Cave

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

Non notable cave, has no sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NGEO. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Clarke

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Austria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been six months since this was last discussed and I don't find any new sourcing, beyond what was discussed at the last AfD. This appears to have been a SYNTH from various bits of news coverage... While you can find mentions of a "hit list" of sorts that the Israeli army has, it doesn't appear to be a playing card deck. I've not seen coverage of this concept this past year, so nothing has changed, notability-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gilbert

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD nomination was closed on a technicality (as I understand it), but this individual does not seem to have met notability criteria either for ACTOR or even GNG. Hopefully we get can an answer here as to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

AfDs for this article:

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

This was up for AfD a few months ago, and since then, there have been so many other attacks like this one. I don't see notability, based on the lack of any sort of continued coverage, that would make this attack stand out from the other hundreds of such attacks at this point. NOTNEWS? Discuss below so it can be settled. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one missile attack among many in this war. No ongoing notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Veleva

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2007. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SINGER. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

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

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Military. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VTES 3rd Edition

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

Outside MtG, individual sets of CCGs are almost never notable, and I don't see why this should be an exception. Maybe merge the mention of awards to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle if it is not there and redirect this per WP:ATD-R? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinion on the suggestion to Merge this content to a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy

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

Prod contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States of America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.

It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any need for this type of list . Agletarang (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete by according to my arguments on the article's talk page. Рулин (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. What an odd page. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders

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

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT: too narrow. Now if it had included only blonds born in January ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too specific to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - To repeat my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders: There are too many other DP articles. If anything all three OF (LF/RF/CF) DP lists should be merged/redirected to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders. I don't see why RF is targeted over CF or LF. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting here the rationale used for closing the CF AFD:
  - The result was no consensus‎. NLIST states, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." This AfD reflects the present lack of consensus on this wider issue.
- Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I can add those to the AfD, I see no problem with merging/redirecting to them. This one was just part of my patrol. Conyo14 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It would probably be a more productive discussion, yes. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Clarifying my !vote now stands at Merge & redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders after all 3 were nom'd. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least partially merge to the outfield double play article. I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable, but double plays by specific position is relevant to the general outfield article. Although maybe limit the specific position lists to 10 or 20 players. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I have updated the AfD to include List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders and List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders. Also pinging original !voters if they want to update their !vote. @BX:, @Clarityfiend:, @Esolo5002:, @Rlendog: Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I agree that the split by position is largely the issue, which is why I support a merge that may allow the list to pass WP:NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: No indication that WP:NLIST is satisfied here, which requires in-depth coverage from independent secondary reliable sources collating an article's list entries together as a group. All three articles fail that standard at present. Left guide (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I oppose any merge or redirect to List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders since that page is an equally problematic failure of WP:NLIST that will inevitably be deleted soon anyways. That's just kicking the can down the road and creating more unnecessary administrative and editorial work in the future for no real gain. Left guide (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and the rest Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92 on this. It's not particularly notable to have the 49th most double plays at your position. If I found this in a records or highlights section of a player page I'd remove it as cherry picked. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Deletion and Merge. However, the merge target article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders which is also up for an AFD discussion. So, this discussion can't close as a possible Merge until the fate of that article is determined. You might consider participating in that discussion, too, so it can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Hovdahl Sandrød

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer using both "Elias Hovdahl Sandrød" and "Elias Sandrød" as a search term. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Subbed in the 86th minute and nothing of note has been disseminated about the player. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders

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

Tagged for notability over three months ago with no sourcing improvements since then. The article's references consist of an MLB rulebook which is a primary source and baseball-reference.com which is a stats database; neither count towards notability. At present, this article topic fails WP:NLIST, which requires in-depth significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources that collate and discuss this list topic's entries together as a group or set to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search came up empty; hence, delete. Left guide (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders. Also, this is covered by Baseball Almanac and I'd imagine baseball-reference though I haven't seen a direct source. Conyo14 (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Are those sources secondary and WP:SIGCOV for this topic though? Mere statistical database entries don't count towards notability; the sources need to provide fleshed out prose and context directly about this list topic. Left guide (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for a !keep. Just merely pointing out the references that are to be pointed here. Baseball Almanac is considered reliable and covers the statistical aspect. Beyond that, I'd say each record is likely to house some WP:SIGCOV from the player article. However, the grouping may not suffice for deletion. Conyo14 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Well can you please provide more specific usable links (the Baseball Almanac link you supplied comes up as an error without rendering anything meaningful) or quotes of the source material so they can be judged and examined by the community? I'm afraid your argument is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES as of the present moment. Notability is demonstrated via evidence of sufficient source material, not the belief or assertion of such. WP:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders is a current example of evidence-based WP:NLIST notability being demonstrated in a similar context (sports stats list). Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it did, let me fix the link. My argument is more like, "watch out". Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Yes, I was already aware of the bundled right-fielder AfD as someone who participated there. I was referring to this Baseball Almanac external link you provided, which incurs a 404-type error. Left guide (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing at a time, Left guide. Conyo14 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Is this the Baseball Almanac source you've been alluding to? If so, it unfortunately doesn't contribute towards WP:NLIST for this particular topic. It has a table with a collection of random outfielder double play stats (not secondary or SIGCOV), and then a "Fast Facts" section at the bottom with secondary prose about three random factoids, but nothing about this list topic specifically. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍🏻 Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forgot to mention in the nom that the content within the article's two sources don't discuss this list topic at all. They're being used in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH fashion to verify tangential details. And this in the external links section is not secondary or SIGCOV; raw stats tables don't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all in set Why do all these lists need to have the top 100 players? I think a List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders that had just the top 10 at each position may be reasonable and notable. Otherwise this is data cruft that should be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. I think top 10 by position is too narrow (I'd favor top 20 or 25 at each position), but the precise number can be sorted out in a talk page discussion (need not be resolved here). Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag and BLP sourcing issues have been tagged for the last eleven years. No sources have been added in that time. Despite two previous AFDs, the article is still not referenced. Given the change in attitude towards needing sources on BLPs since the last AFD in 2009, it is time to look at this again. 4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unsourced but external links provided. Subject to two previous AFDs (Kept, No consensus) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Radio London

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

Non-notable radio station. Lacks WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This is just a single transmitter carrying programming for a network. Per previous similar AfD nominations e.g. [9] it should be redirected to Hits Radio. As an additional comment, all of these regional Hits Radio articles are a mess and need a tidy up. Individual transmitters for Hits Radio are not notable, but the original stations (e.g. Radio City, Hallam FM) were. I don't know why someone was so excited to move the articles. Flip Format (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Anthems

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

Non-notable radio station. Lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any content that relates specifically to this station and can be sourced can be added to a section in Capital (radio network). Most of the article is a general overview of recent station launches by Global with a lot of unnecessary detail on multiplex configurations, and the station itself is mainly an automated music service. It is not independently notable. Flip Format (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only sources I could find were 2 directory listings in Google books. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted and salted. This new creation must not escape review. Most of the sources are written in a clearly promotional tone and hence are probably not independent of the subject. As one egregious example, the first and last sources are clearly variations of the same press release - starting with In the dynamic arena of contemporary art, few names resonate as profoundly as Marko Stout vs. In the dynamic world of contemporary art, few names shine as brightly as Marko Stout‘s.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Medicine, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suemonella

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

Non-notable TikTok account. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hammer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable "author" (blogger). Feels self-promotional. Lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article of a non-notable figure Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Firearms, Internet, Alaska, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In no way meets the WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER. Image was previously published by Hammer, so either it's copyvio or there's an obvious COI at play. Given the tone, could be either. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Sidenote: Is this the same person as the previous two Afds who seemed to be a porn actor? Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreenLipstickLesbian's comment. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Anish

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only 1 article links to this, the school he attended. A google news search seems to come up with mainly namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability, no new quality sources found in searches, citations in article are routine, promotional, self-penned, or 404'd, and not significant coverage. Even the book doesn't get more than one citation (and that paper isn't on GScholar). Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Girls' College

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

Non-notable school. No WP:RS and unlikely any exist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika Bibileishvili

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

Non-notable classical musician. Feels WP:TOOSOON. Page lacks WP:RS and so does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any RS via WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

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

I was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Travel and tourism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs

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

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Spain, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some references for the artist. I've NO idea I they are suitable. I will have a look again tomorrow.Knitsey (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better than what we had, which was nothing. Thank you for your effort.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There might be some more refs I can find. Knitsey (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more refs. There might be more to come. I would really like for someone to take a look to see if they're suitable? Knitsey (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, I haven't really editied the article much, just provided refs for what was already there. I will re-work it a bit if this AfD results in keep. I need to check on the date order for all the operas listed. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prefer to see further improvement rather than deleting. --Mervyn (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added sources would be helpful. If they are adequate would the nominator consider a withdrawal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sober

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

Been tagged for sourcing issues since 2011. Not clear if subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

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

Article fails demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Both TechCrunch articles are about routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). And not that it matters but the article was created by a now-blocked SPA. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Softball, and California. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This situation is confusing as it looks like it was nominated before at AFD but now the previous AFD has been deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. So, I'm unsure whether or not it is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Mok

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Turaccio

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

An article on a non-notable adherent of Menotti Lerro's so-called Empathic Movement (Empathism), part of a "walled garden" type series of articles promoting Lerro and Empathism. All of the sources are primary/press-releases or promo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACADEMIC. A before search finds a few things he wrote, but his h-index on Google Scholar and Scopus is non-existant. I did find something the Menotti Lerro wrote on him and other Empathism manifesto signatories, but that is obviously connected. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvio Annese

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

Another article on a non-notable artist and professor from a "walled garden"-type series of articles promoting the "members" of Menotti Lerro's "movement/manifesto", Empathism and his New Manifesto of Arts. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG, all the sources are primary/connected except the Milano Today source that simple name-checks him in a mention. As an academic, he fails WP:NACADEMIC as he has a h-index of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus, and all I could find was an article written by Lerro about his own (Lerro's) so-called Empathic movement. I beleive this is WP:PROMO and should be deleted. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Casciello

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

This article on an Italian artist is part of a sort-of "walled garden" of articles on artists and academics affiliated with Menotti Lerro's so-called movement, Empathism and who signed his manifesto. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources are all primary sources except, perhaps one, however that may be a press release. Fails WP:NARTIST. The article claims he was in the Venice Bienale 3 times, altho this could not be verified by the Venice Bienale itself [10]], so perhaps he was in one of the satellite shows but not represented in the actual Bienale. As an academic he fails WP:NACADEMIC, as there is an h-index score of zero on Google Scholar and Scopus I found a few things he wrote, but they were not cited by others. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and Italy. Netherzone (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels like there should be more sources about this woman. Searching on her name I find nothing about her but lots of hits on the building at Wellesley that she endowed. There is the one NY Times article about her and her husband giving $25M to the college, and a short mention in another NYT article, both already in the references. There is the fact that she was a trustee at Rockefeller University, and was on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other major organizations - and yet, I don't find independent sources. She feels notable. I will cycle back hoping that someone else has better search results. Lamona (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Peek, Liz (2007-05-08). "Lulu Wang Throttles Back (Except on the Racetrack)". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Ms. Wang is one of the original members of the Committee of 100, a group of high-level Chinese-Americans — who include I.M. Pei, Yo-Yo Ma, and Oscar Tang — created shortly after the Tiananmen Square crackdown ... The move was accidental. Her father’s job as a senior official with the Nationalist Party took the Chow family to India during the war years of the 1940s. Ms. Wang was born in New Delhi under the crudest of circumstances. ... Following this path, Ms. Wang moved on to Bankers Trust Co., where she was soon responsible for analyzing about 20% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. ... Ms. Wang opened Tupelo Capital Management in 1998. Her husband, Anthony Wang, had made a fortune at Computer Associates, a firm founded by his brother, which ran into problems after Tony Wang retired in 1992."
2. Zernike, Kate (2000-04-16). "Couple Gives Wellesley a Record $25 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Lulu Wang is the founder of Tupelo Capital Management, a name chosen tongue-in-cheek with reference to one of Wellesley's more girlish traditions. ... Mrs. Wang has been a member of Wellesley's board of trustees since 1988, and is the first woman to head the board's investment committee, which is in charge of investing the college's endowment, valued at about $1 billion. She also heads the finance committee of the New York Community Trust and serves on a number of other boards in New York, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, WNYC and the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
3. Norton, Leslie P. (2002-12-09). "The Chinese Connection". Barron's. ProQuest 201096765. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "One newly prominent donor is Lulu Wang, a patrician Chinese-American who runs Tupelo Capital Management, a New York money-management firm. Wang came here with her family from Shanghai in 1948; a vacation became permanent immigration as her father, tied to the Nationalists, opted to stay in America. Her $25 million gift to Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1966, was given to build a new student center. Construction on the Wang Campus Center will start next year, and finish in 2004. Wang has been active for years in philanthropic circles -- she's a board member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York public radio station WNYC, and Wellesley. She's also funding Bill Moyers' coming PBS series "Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.""
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Agnew, Harriet (2022-03-03). "Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood on everything from deflation to Elon Musk". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
    The article notes: "In 1998, as the dotcom bubble was reaching its climax, Wood and one of her colleagues, Lulu Wang, left Jennison to set up a fund in New York called Tupelo Capital Management. By the end of March 2000, the peak of the tech bubble, Tupelo’s assets under management had reached almost $1.4bn, according to a regulatory filing. Twelve months later, Tupelo’s assets had slumped to around $200mn, according to a separate regulatory filing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lulu Chow Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrons article is about her father, and gives her a single paragraph, and one that is very similar to other short paragraphs about her. I find it interesting that the NYT article (which also has 2 paragraphs about her, the rest refers to she and her husband as a unit) says that they declined to be interviewed. This may indicate that she has been reticent about publicity, and that may explain why we don't have much about her. Ditto the Financial Times article (which has only a mention of Wang) which says "Wang declined to comment." I did find one more article about her at msnbc. This has a lot of her words so it resembles an interview but isn't presented in interview form. I think it's worth digging, but I am not finding the kind of analysis that would be independent. Everything I see just reiterates the same few facts about her. It's kind of frustrating, I admit. Lamona (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for uncovering the MSNBC article which is a very good find. That in-depth profile solidifies her notability. I think there is enough nontrivial coverage across all the sources for Lulu Chow Wang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the two New York Times sources and the ones mentioned above I found one from MSNBC. There are others as well to pass WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per detailed analysis of sources presented by Cunard. Piscili (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard and the MSNBC profile. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Dastak

AfDs for this article:

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

I have multiple reasons for proposing this article for deletion. Firstly, the page creator is blocked. Secondly, all the references provided are fabricated. The page creator has deceptively used the term 'National Dastak' in the title to mislead other editors. The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:WEB from any perspective." Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Youknow? (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources do exist, but they're all trivial mentions in lists or attributions - not the kind of discussion of the subject needed to show notability. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is not G5 eligible, as the creator was not a sock of a then-blocked editor: as such the creator's block is not relevant. And the basic facts provided in the article do check out, it's obviously not a hoax. Whether it's notable, I'm less certain: there is coverage, including articles focused on on this channel: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and a handful of others. There's not a lot of detail, hence "weak". Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the page and the sources and I do see where the mislead was attempted where title of the sources were changed.
- Source 1 misleading title on the page is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj" but the actual title is "#BeingADalit: How the Online Boom is Helping Dalits Reclaim and Reassert Their Identity". There is nothing in the source except for passing mention that says "Yadav has previously worked with news websites like National Dastak that talk of Bahujan samaj."
- Source 2 misleading title on the page is "National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a Bahujan perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media" but the actual title is "BSP war room is turning up the heat on BJP and SP". The source has nothing significant except for passing mention that says "There are also news portals like National Dastak, which provide reportage and videos from a 'Bahujan' perspective to counter the perspective of the upper caste-dominated mainstream English and Hindi media."
- Source 3 has passing mention that goes "There are YouTube channels widely watched by Dalits, including National Dastak...".
- Source 4 has passing mention that goes "Web channel National Dastak played the video of Chandrashekhar Azad addressing the protesters."
- Source 5 has misleading title on the page that says "As per a report of the National Dastak, Riya Singh, a Dalit will pursue Ph D in Women's Studies" but the actual title of the source is "Riya Singh, a Dalit, tops TISS entrance exam". This source has nothing except for passing mention that is shown in the misleading title of the source.
- Source 6 has passing mention that says "In Uttar Pradesh, BJP is the single largest party across the polls except for National Dastak which is predicting BSP victory."
- Source 7 has passing mention that says "Speaking to National Dastak after organizing ‘Blood donation’ programme".
- Source 8 has passing mention "Videos on National Dastak have over 88 crore views." All the sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the sources that exist, not ones that are in the article. When I have provided other sources above, you need to demonstrate that they do not confer notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not look at the sources you provided in your vote but I did now. Source 1 is giving me 404 error, source 2,4,5,6 are all same WP:ROUTINE news about union government asking YouTube to take down ‘National Dastak’ from its platform. Source 2 is likely unreliable as Mumbai Mirror's about us page has comments from Wikipedia and the disclaimer says that it does not take responsibility for the reports by contributors. Source 3 is about the Journalist Anmol Pritam who works for YouTube channel National Dastak and was forced to chant a slogan by a mob and the article has also claims made by the journalist himself to another news media. This is all routine news. Not enough to pass WP:NCORP imv. RangersRus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanamonde93 added Ref and WP:NEXIST there is Hindi coverage about the channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue is that the additional sources provided do not meet WP:WEBCRIT. All of the sources except for two fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so they are not reliable. This one simply mentions a journalist that works for National Dastak while this one provides some detail but isn't in-depth (and if considered in-depth, that leaves one reference). --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with million subscribers, this channel is one of the most important YouTube news platform and I think a lot of reference will be found if searched.

Admantine123 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admantine123, it's the responsibility of editors wanting to Keep an article to go out and locate those reliable sources as Vanamonde93 has done. I'm not sure who else you thought would spend the time in this "search". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

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

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because this is a 1976 film and cast, music director and director are all notable and it contributes to the notability of the film. Or redirect to Vasant Joglekar. Very opposed to deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of WP:NFIC#2. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a 1976 film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am bit confused, You added a SourcesExist template yourself, was it by mistake? And sources have been added since nomination, some allowing partial verification of the cast (or simply look at the poster if you wish), some looking reliable but not allowing it so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis.
- Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
@User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )[reply]

How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Chol-hyok

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. The one source provided is not nearly enough. Redirect to 2010 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article was already nominated for deletion by the same user less than three months ago, which resulted in a clear consensus to keep. Nothing has changed since then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that the previous result was incorrect as the article still fails WP:GNG. Was far from clear. Article should not be kept due to ideological reasons. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You personally may disagree with that consensus, but that does not mean that you are correct. Re-nominating it so soon when there's been zero change in anything – just because you don't like the original outcome – is borderline disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say i didnt like it, I'm saying that it was incorrect based on the sourcing. Are you saying that the one source is the article is sufficient to pass WP:GNG? If so I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on the guidelines if you are assessing the article objectively. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Per BeanieFan11. Little time has passed since the last AfD, nothing that justifies a change in consensus. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first AFD nomination votes/comments. This article was here in the AFD just about three months ago with huge support to keep and should not have been returned within this short period especially by the same user who nominated it then. Piscili (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Seung-il (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]