Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 12	December 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The Campaign Trail (Web Game)

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

Low notability and lack of reliable or real sources per WP:GNG. Tadpole2006 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a single RS cited for one sentence, the rest of the article cites the website itself or fan websites, obviously going against notability guidelines and WP:NOR. I'll also note that discussion about this article is taking place on the game's subreddit encouraging fans to edit this article, which has a danger of turning into WP:CANVASS. 148.252.145.173 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. λ NegativeMP1 00:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Polygon source is the only one I can find about the game. One source isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for sources and found only the usual game/developer accounts, Fandom page, and some social media, but no reliable, secondary sources beside the single Polygon source. I also used the WikiProject Video games custom Google searches and found the same, plus many more about the board game with the same title, and general use of the phrase "[the] campaign trail". Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable nor does one source make something notable enough for a page, per all the above. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for 14 year old Redditor's who appear to be fanboys of George Wallace or Nelson Rockefeller to make a muck in. The subreddit post in question that the IP user above referred too makes this seem like an extra insidious attempt to violate WP:CANVASS. Wikipedia is not a toy. Planetberaure (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible, genuinely really sorry for the way our community handled this. I admittedly tried to add some genuine information, and while I tried to utilize of WK:Canvas rules, admittedly did not know about WK:Notable rules and agree that the web game is most definetly, as of yet not known enough as of yet. I'm a moderator on it and if necessary could try to disavow the recommending of the editing on this article. 191.231.211.69 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletearooski As an admittedly big fan of both the New Campaign Trail and the Campaign Trail Showcase, I am afraid that I'm going to have to go with the majority opinion here and advise a delete of this page. While there is one (1) notable and reliable source (Polygon), the rest of the sources that could be added would either be direct links to the website itself OR links to years old Reddit threads with no actual additional notability to be added to the context of the article. Also note the discussion currently going on in the Reddit thread (violating WP:CANVASS), and how despite my love for this game, it really only fosters a community of alternate history obsessed nerds who spend way too much time on an internet web game and who idolize long dead and, even in their time, has been politicians (George Romney, Scoop Jackson, and the aforementioned Wallace come to mind). Really niche? Yes. Really fun? Yep. Really deserving of a Wikipedia article? Nah. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Please do delete this. So sorry about this article-I'm from the game's community and we told people not to do crap like this and they still do. I am begging you for our sake please get rid of this it's not notable and it's just embarrassing people keep trying to make one because they want it to be a "real game." Not really sure if I'm breaking rules as I'm kinda connected to the game I guess (sorry I don't use wikipedia much I just have an account) but yeah it's obviously not notable. Crabpop83 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page was made by a fan account closely associated with the game's subreddit and there is literally a thread of them celebrating its creation as if it is a toy. [1] Also as mentioned above, this relies on primary sources and doesn't have much notability. Due to the potential violations of Wikipedia's policies and notability, this needs to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsaQuathern (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, the article isn't WP:Notable. The Polygon article simply isn't enough to warrant notability, and as Woodroar pointed out, there aren't any other sources that could be added to make it notable. ImperialSam27 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

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

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Obviously the page itself needs to have sources added. What persuades me towards keep is that the organisation is quoted quite a lot as part of the CV or similar of people, e.g. membership, talks, award and Orcid entries as examples. (There are many more of these.) This indicates that it has enough stature that people mention it, albeit this is not as strong as specific articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Egg Records

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this record label. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Frost 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Frost 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, don't delete. Many people use this wiki page Dave ida (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An old label with many connections to artists and other labels Dave ida (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've added the only references that I could find, and that was an interview with the owner, so it's not much of a reference. I've had a nosey around and can't seem to find any other references that count towards notability. Delete per WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk)
Weak Keep" There are some articles regarding band album releases on Pickled Egg Records. Fryedk (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant because of relative longevity (for an indie label) and connections to a couple of major acts, most importantly Daniel Johnston. I've added a couple of press refs.MongogramForCandy (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added links for notable musicians who have recorded for the label, including Jeremy Barnes (A Hawk and a Hacksaw, Neutral Milk Hotel, Beirut), Seb Rochford (Polar Bear, Acoutic Ladyland), Alex Neilson (Trembling Bells, Will Oldham, et al), writer, broadcaster (BBC Radio 3 and Radio 4) and musician David Bramwell; plus of course, the aforementioned Daniel Johnston, and the debut Go! Team single. Nigel Turner (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The label famously - some might say, infamously - secured five entries in John Peel's Festive Fifty in 1998, a mere 12 months after launching; I've added a reference for this. The label also set up and managed Daniel Johnston's first European tour; again, I've added a reference to this. Nigel Turner (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added links and citation for the release in 1999 of the Evolution Control Committee's 'Whipped Cream Mixes', considered to be the first modern mash-up record. Nigel Turner (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Because Pickled Egg was a great label and this entry should be kept for posterity! 84.67.149.83 (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep record label that represented a host of important UK bands. Fryedk (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep! I've referred to this page a number of times, found it very helpful when exploring an area of the music scene that is underrepresented online and pages like this one are an important resource and document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:2B1B:2501:1110:439:E531:A57D (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of refs now, eighteen notable acts on this rosterDanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't have any proof, but this discussion has all the hallmarks of having been the subject of canvassing. Giving it another week to invite comment from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are about the best I can find for sourcing [2], [3], I don't think we have enough to show notability. References now in the article aren't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships qualification tournament

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. A qualification touranment for a competition. The only source are short " it exists" coverage and the stats. Tagged by others for wp:notability since February North8000 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships as an AtD. I agree there is no standalone notability for the qualification tourney. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WePlay AniMajor

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

Fails WP:NEVENT; no "enduring historical significance". Janhrach (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Events. Janhrach (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goro Maki

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

User talk:GojiraFan1954 has lately been going on a (metaphorical) killing spree by rushing to create as many articles as they can before they're properly ready -- but this one may be the worst yet. An article for the character Goro Maki has no notability due to no significant coverage from secondary or third-party sources, relies on WP:OR, WP:SYN, and is mostly driven by WP:FAN. In short, it's an article that has no reason to exist. GojiraFan1954 is treating Wikipedia as if it's a Wikia fan page. Armegon (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am telling you, I would never treat Wikipedia like its a so-called "Wikia fan page", I only make articles on characters that are iconic, and if I don't find enough evidence of the iconic articles, then I don't select the said character for a Wikipedia article, by the sounds of this AFD, it doesn't just seem to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's an WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT. That's my conclusion. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; I would suggest the nom try and be a bit more respectful, especially since GojiraFan is a relatively new user still learning the ropes. Remember to assume good faith in cases like these.

That being said, I do also feel that the subjects you've written so far aren't really clearly illustrating why they're meeting independent notability. Articles need strong citations from secondary sources to back up if they're independently notable or not.

Using Maki here as an example, you say he's iconic, and yet the only two citations in the article are a fan theory briefly mentioned in a single article and a Screen Rant citation, which is considered to be something not very helpful for notability due to content farm reasons per Wikipedia:VALNET. For a subject like this, I'd expect at least a few strong citations that act as Wikipedia:Significant coverage of the subject, such as a source analyzing his role in the series or an article discussing his popularity in depth.

You clearly seem passionate about this and have a grasp on the process already, but I do suggest familiarizing yourself with what Wikipedia considers helpful for illustrating independent notability, as well as general policies for this topic. Examples include Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:SIGCOV (Which I have already linked above), and scattered discussions across the site on fictional character notability. If you want help or pointers, I'd be happy to help with anything you need. Let me know if you need clarification on anything I said above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GojiraFan1954: Apologies if I sounded aggressive, or disrespectful even. I was trying to stress how some of your recent articles seem more in line with a Wikia Fan's article than a Wiki article. But I could've phrased it better. I also offer my help, should you need it. My Talk page is always open. Armegon (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a response from this AFD, I'm giving out my consent that this article should be draftified in my sandbox. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Son of Godzilla, his first appearance, as an AtD. I agree with everything in the nom regarding this article in particular, and that this character doesn't really have independent notability from any of his appearances. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support Userfy per GojiraFan below. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting the article into user space to let it incubate may be a good idea and GojiraFan can reintroduce the article if cleanup can be accomplished. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So draftify in my sandbox is the answer? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally a good idea to work on a new article in draft user space it it's unclear if notability can be immediately established. Of course, if notability can't eventually be established, it might be deleted there too, but I think there is less pressure as long as the user aims to develop the article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, I'll go for draftify in my sandbox GojiraFan1954 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, I'll give you the consensus to moving it to GojiraFan1954/sandbox/Goro Maki and I'll keep on working on the article until its ready for mainspace. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as suggested. Right now, the three sources are not reliable, but maybe they can find more. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The fact that none of the references included in the article are significant coverage from reliable sources means that this was nowhere near ready for main space. On top of that, none of these three separate characters that share the name in the franchise actually have enough notability to pass the WP:GNG. While I am not opposed to allowing this to go back into draft space as an WP:ATD for now, the fact that my own searches for sources are not turning up any significant coverage in reliable sources and the Japanese Wikipedia does not have an article on any of the three characters to help draw non-English sources from, I honestly doubt this will ever be an appropriate article for the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not notable, it's not notable - there have not been any sources presented that indicates it passes WP:GNG. There is no need for giving the creator false hope that it will be restored as an article only to be let down even heavier if it's not accepted. It's better to rip the Band-Aid off and encourage them to put their efforts towards creating or improving notable articles instead, of which I am sure they can find one to work on since there is plenty of work to be done in this subject area. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this could be closed with a result to userfy, but even those supporting that seem to have serious doubts that it will ever be an appropriate mainspace page, so that probably needs further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glostrup Terrorists Case

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

Relatively minor case of arrest and prosecution. WP:NEVENT without much followup information. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rescope. there seems to be continued coverage to pass NEVENT to me [4], also lots of book coverage [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

This article is a hot mess though and needs to be renamed, and possibly rescoped to focus on this in combination with the arrests in Bosnia which this is really a subtopic of. I would suggest rescoping on the overarching terror plot which resulted in arrests in several countries. We actually have a completely separate article on one of the people related to this plan, Mirsad Bektašević, which should probably be merged into an article on the terror plot since he is BLP1E and the coverage isn't so prolific as to necessitate or benefit from multiple articles. Something here is notable but we aren't covering it the best way - not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator

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

Fails WP: GNG. I found one short paragraph in a book, but otherwise I couldn't find anything that could be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-established technical standard from one of the largest computer networks of the 1980s and 1990s. Further evidence of notability will likely be found in contemporaneous digital sources (nowadays hard to find) than in books. The FidoNews archive (not indexed by Google and other search engines due to its antiquated compression format) and terminal/BBS software manuals would be good places to start. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Psychonaut (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Horrible reasoning. Vaguely gesturing to an archive of 4000 zip files and saying "it's probably in here" is not a valid argument. If this is such a well-known standard, you should have no issue finding sources that provide in-depth coverage to back up what you're saying. Are you seriously asking me to download thousands of zip files written by a stranger on the Internet onto my own computer? HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm saying that the topic is likely notable and have provided pointers to anyone who has both the time and interest to help find sources that further support this notability. I have the interest but unfortunately no time at the moment, particularly given that any reliable sources that do exist probably aren't readily available on the Web. (Case in point: the documents you have balked at examining were not written "on the Internet"; they simply happen to be archived there.) If you do want to help, you might provide details of the book you found. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care whether they were initially published in a print format. I would like to see specific quotations from source material that show significant coverage. If you are not going to do that, I have nothing to discuss with you. No WP: SIGCOV, no article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It belatedly occurs to me that the two sources already cited in the article probably already meet WP:GNG in that they are reliable (both having been adopted as FidoNet standards), have significant coverage of the topic (one of which describes in detail the protocol and an independent implementation of it, and the other of which describes an extension to the original protocol), and are independent of the subject (since they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it). Having freed up some time this evening, I found a few further sources with more than trivial mentions of AVATAR:
- PC Interrupts: A Programmer's Reference Guide to BIOS, DOS, and Third-party Calls by Ralf Brown and Jim Kyle (Addison-Wesley, 1993) has a paragraph about the serial dispatcher of the AVATAR driver in Chapter 7 and several pages' worth of API documentation for the AVATAR driver in Chapter 36.
- "ANSI-TERM 4", an article about the eponymous terminal software by its author Richard VanHouten, appears in the September 1992 issue of Computer News 80 (Vol. 5, № 9), and includes a short paragraph discussing AVATAR and which terminals support it. (Similar information is recapitulated elsewhere in the issue in an independent review of ANSI-TERM 4 by Gary W. Shanafelt, though this one may be too brief to count.)
- The Opus Technical Reference Manual by Trev Roydhouse (2nd edition, 1991) has a comprehensive description of all AVATAR commands in §4.4.2. (This source may or may not be fully independent; although Opus and AVATAR were designed by Wynn Wagner III, the manual was not written by him.)
—Psychonaut (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. In one of the sources, the author describes making a phone call to the developer of AVATAR. This would not realistically happen unless the two were already in close contact with one another. (Note: there's two sources on the article currently, both written by George Stanislav.)

You also propose that these sources are independent of the subject "they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it". This, of course, is unreasonable. Under this interpretation of independence, it would okay for my friend to write a Wikipedia article about my high school programming assignment because they never looked at the code before the project was completed.

You need to provide specific quotations from the other sources not in the article. Technical documentation usually does not qualify as significant coverage, because most documentation is authored by someone participating in the development process. At this point, you have done nothing to show that any source provides significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no such rule here about technical documentation, no one is under any obligation to quote third-party sources (which, as I've indicated, total many pages of material on the topic), and with the probable exception of Roydhouse, the authors we are discussing (Stanislav, Brown, Kyle, VanHouten, and Shanafelt) had no prior relationship with AVATAR's creator and were all documenting something that they had, at their time of writing, no involvement in developing. We do not discount sources simply because the author may have telephoned someone connected with the subject in order to gather information, a practice that is routine in journalism and not uncommon in scientific and technical writing. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Stanislav is not an independent source. They are a software developer that works in close collaboration with the author of AVATAR, Wynn Wagner. The sources are technical documents about the software:

When I started working on my TinyTerm communications program, I had the idea that if Opus-CBCS could send the "oANSI" codes directly over the phone lines, it would speed up the communications considerably. A typical ANSI sequence contains 4 times as many bytes as the codes developed by Wynn Wagner. A phone call to Wynn resulted in two things: TinyTerm can interpret the "oANSI" codes and translate them to ANSI, then send them to stdout where they are converted to colors by ANSI.SYS [and] Opus-CBCS, starting with gamma version 1.10.iii, will send the codes without converting them to ANSI sequences. (It will still send ANSI codes to users without the proper terminal software.)

Even if you know absolutely nothing about software development, you obviously know that this is not written for the New York Times. These are two software developers working in close collaboration to decide how a piece of software should be implemented. Their relationship is not journalistic. The fact that Stanislav came up with the name of AVATAR further establishes that their relationship was not journalistic.

I also found this page written by Wynn Wagner that states "The last version of Opus that I wrote was v1.03. ... George Stanislav took over Opus development when I finally turned off my PC. He completed several utilities." It's not just about a single phone call: it's about a standing collaboration. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you don't want to give us quotations from those other sources, the article will be deleted. The onus is on you to show significant coverage, and you haven't done that. If you don't want to complete your argument, I'm not going to stop you. You told users to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun, and you wrongly claimed that George Stanislav, a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR, was an independent journalist. Nobody here should trust what you're saying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can find a few articles in scholar that mention it, and amazingly the tech description (and/or code) can be found online, mostly at thebbs.org. As I recall there were BBS-specific magazines and a fair amount of BBS discussion in things like PC Magazine. But content from that era will be very hard to find. I'd be happy to !vote keep if something can be found. Lamona (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PC Interrupts book has nearly a full page with technical specs and a small amount of explanation. It doesn't seem enough to create a stand-alone article, and doesn't cover some of the unreferenced statements in the article. I'm wondering if we can find a merge target, something like Bulletin board system or ANSI_escape_codes or Advanced Video Coding (or anything else appropriate). To User:HyperAccelerated: having a phone call or even working with someone does not mean that the source cannot be independent. Journalists interact with the subjects of their writings, sometimes intensely, and can still write independent stories. Knowing someone does not erase independence. Also, please be civil; at no time did User:Psychonaut tell anyone "to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun." WP:AGF, right? Lamona (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any of those merge targets. I have also yet to see convincing evidence that Stanislav is a journalist. The literature I have found suggests that they are a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisson (singer)

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

Musician and radio DJ. The claims of notability are a #15 Hot Dance Airplay song in 2006, and one of his songs playing at a club scene in an episode of a NBC TV show. Neither of these meet WP:NMUSIC. All content edits are by two accounts that never edited anything else on Wikipedia (except a deleted draft article on his band). One reference is to the charts for the #15 hit, the other is vague and to a magazine that mentions a lot of musicians in passing. Here2rewrite (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Meets criteria 2 of WP:SINGER for charting on a national music chart. No coverage other than a chart listing though... Unfortunately WP:LINKROT is a very real issue from 2006. It might be rescuable on sourcing grounds if we were to look at music magazine/newspaper coverage offline or behind paywalls. 4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national music chart for the US is the main billboard chart, not Hot Dance Airplay. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Historically at AFD we have interpreted all Billboard chart categories under criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO because they are all "national in scope".4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have sourced the PDF of Billboard that verifies the charting and added it as an inline citation. There is coverage of his radio career on SFGate:[10] and also here. Potentially a keep, needs further work. ResonantDis_tortion 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brief mentions, single sentences that say when his radio program airs a quote from him in an article about something else. With the right news archive search there are dozens of results like that for any local DJ. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, obviously, and is why I agreed with 4meter4 and stated there is potential, but did not !vote a firm keep (pending any further developments). ResonantDis_tortion 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage in RS. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fitzmartin

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

In my WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Much of the coverage that there was was related to the subject's role as musical director of the Keystone State Boychoir, and only passing mention at that. I couldn't find any critical reviews of the Concert Mass that is referred to in the article, although its premiere was at Carnegie Hall [11]. I therefore propose that the notability bar is not met, and that the content should be merged into the Keystone State Boychoir article (not that that itself is without problems!) with a Redirect from this article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge to Keystone State Boychoir.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kızım Nerede?

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

Tagged uncited for over a decade and Turkish article also uncited. There must be thousands of Turkish TV series as they generally run for only a few months or a year or two. I searched but could not see how this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've rapidly added a few things that seem to show this is notable enough. Opposed to deletion as a redirect either to the adapted series or to the network or to a list seems completely warranted anyway. The fact that there are "thousands of Turkish TV series" (in the history of Turkish TV?) cannot be considered a reason to delete any of them, nor is the fact that they run for months or a year or two "only", sorry.-Mushy Yank. 02:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business operations

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

unsourced disputable definition of the term fgnievinski (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: topic is almost certainly notable, the article has poor sourcing but that can be fixed Noah ^💬 22:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the term is notable, but the particular definition is not; this is causing great confusion in incoming links. fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Business. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lokotrans Aréna

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

The article titled Lokotrans Aréna does not satisfy the notability requirements outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:NSTADIUM and WP:GNG. The rationale for this deletion request is based on the principle of consistency in application of policies, as evidenced by the deletion of the Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium article. Below, I outline the reasons why the Lokotrans Aréna article should be removed: 1) The article provides minimal information, mostly focusing on basic facts about the stadium's capacity, location, and sponsorship history. Such details do not constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, which is required by WP:GNG. 2) The stadium does not stand out architecturally, historically, or culturally. It resembles numerous local sports facilities, which are typically deemed non-notable unless they meet the general notability criteria through substantial independent coverage. 3) The primary reference cited in the article is from the club's official website, which is not independent. This reliance on primary sources further undermines the claim of notability. 4) The deletion of the Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium article serves as a clear precedent. In that case, arguments were made that small local stadiums without significant independent coverage do not warrant standalone articles. The same reasoning applies to Lokotrans Aréna. Moreover, consistent enforcement of Wikipedia's policies ensures fairness and credibility. 5) Similar to the decision regarding Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium, I propose either a deletion or a redirection of the Lokotrans Aréna article to the FK Mladá Boleslav article. Any relevant information about the stadium can be integrated into the club's article, maintaining its visibility while adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines. 6) Out of caution, I argue that it is irrelevant that the national team or Premier League of Czechia teams played at this stadium. This argument did not gain recognition in the case of the Tarnobrzeg stadium Paradygmaty (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is such a TLDR nom that I can't take this seriously, but the nom's own article at Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium was redirected (not deleted) to the club's article (and the nom tried to restore the article against the discussion's consensus after close several times), so this reads as a blatant 'revenge deletion'. There are no issues with this article as-is outside needing expansion, and the nom forgetting the result above while mixing LLMs and unparaphrased guidelines into the above, and that deletion isn't likely here is concerning. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Count of Lippe-Biesterfeld

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

The article's significance is not demonstrated. The article only provides genealogical information, although the person in question did nothing noteworthy.--RobertVikman (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gillespie (English singer)

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

Subject appears to fail GNG and WP:MUSIC. A web search for sources found only other singers with the same name, and promotional materials for the "Kings of Floyd" tribute band. The article has a long history and has periodically been stubbed due to a lack of sources. Uninvited Company 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uninvited Company 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Group Holdings

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

The contents are already on The Range (retailer) who own CDS Superstores which is the only trading activity of Norton Group Holdings--Icaldonta (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Topic fails GNG without a doubt. Noah ^💬 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either The Range (retailer) or Chris Dawson (businessman). Doesn't look like sufficient depth of coverage to pass the WP:ORGDEPTH requirement of WP:NCORP. Mentions of this company almost always relate to articles on its primary subsidiary The Range and/or its sole director and founder, Chris Dawson. Rupples (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Cebula

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

His Ekstraklarsa career listed a total of 206 minutes and he disappeared in 2019. Regarding secondary sources, I only found two transfer rumors and an interview, none of which count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sigcov does not exist

Noah ^💬 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majeerteen-Hobyo Wars

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

I could not find any sources that talk about the war between the Majerteen Sultanate and the Hobyo Sultanate. This article also has not cited any sources. It seems to be a hoax. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Somalia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war is real and it isn’t a hoax. In the majeerteen sultanates wiki page it talks about this war in the hobyo section. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ONotAQAAIAAJ&q=hobyo+sultanate&dq=hobyo+sultanate&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfw9eRnaWKAxUzWkEAHdH0FJwQ6AF6BAgEEAM#hobyo%20sultanate Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Page 17. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude i got it wrong by autocorrect and now it’s not letting me delete the comment.. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OR mess, lacks citations. It does not meet criterias to warrant a standalone article, fails WP:MILNG. Garuda ^Talk! 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O. E. Lang

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate reliable sources to support notability. Unsuccessful political candidate, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the inclusion bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates get articles only if they can be shown to already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But this article as written is not properly demonstrating his notability as a non-profit executive, either: it's based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as content self-published by directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own writing, while the only reliable source in the batch is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else rather than any evidence of coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eudora OSE

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

Appears to be an open source version of Eudora, article is virtually entirely original research. Any notability seems tied to Eudora or Thunderbird. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though mainly for historical interest. However, I have a weak spot for Eudora, which was head and shoulders better than Mail, Thunderbird, Gmail etc. I only gave up on Eudora (in around 2012 — long after it stopped being maintained) because our computer service more or less insisted. Athel cb (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay

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

The sources listed do not establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted due to lack of sourcing, this article was refunded to draftspace after an editor said sources were available and then moved to mainspace. However, the newly supplied sources still do not support notabilty. Each of the three sources included here ([12], [13], [14] has a single paragraph or less out of a full-length book on this battle. These sources verify that this battle took place, but is not WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The only other source I found in my WP:BEFORE is a post on a blog of questionable reliability. (It says it allows "anyone with a reasonable grounding in the Dharmic Indian civilization to air their views.") If there's a valid redirect target I'm open to it but I don't know what it would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Dalla-Camina

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

A highly promotional bio of an individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article comprise:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([15], [16], [17]) and official bios ([18], [19])
Self-authored content (Fast Company)
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (Elle, B&T)
A Forbes contributor, an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON;
Promotional marketing content ([20], [21])

My WP:BEFORE search turned up more of the same kind of content, nothing qualifying. I also searched for book reviews to see if she passed WP:NAUTHOR for any of her books, but I found only a single independent review for Women Rising, so there's no pass on that criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haroun (Fadhiweyn)

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

Article about an unnotable headquarters of a Somali rebel group. I couldn't find any significant sources on the subject other than this article. Most sources in this article are either broken or not related to it at all. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Epic

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

An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Yee

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

Article clearly failing general notability guidelines and references are not seems to be reliable. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable entrepreneur and founder of a non notable company. Sources cited in article are non RS and not even about the subject of the article but his company. Nothing in the article that brings him close to passing inclusion criteria. Mekomo (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Olympic athletes with similar names. I'm not sure what the SVO Elite club is or why being a member is notable. The award given by the SVO also doesn't seem notable. What's left is a two line sentence about founding a company, and having twins. Neither of which is terribly notable. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonial anarchism

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

Two and a half years ago, Czar raised the article's synthetic scope over on the talk page, pointing out how the article was a "hodgepodge of various concepts [...] rather than any unified coverage of a singular concept". When I came across it, I concurred with this assessment, after finding that more than 2/3rds of the article was stringing together different concepts based on sources that never mentioned the subject.[22]

I think this is yet another "x anarchism" article from an older era of Wikipedia, when attempting to create new tendencies/philosophies out of passing uses of a term (or even just wholesale making shit up) was all the rage. Searching through sources about this term, I've only found passing references to Roger White's book Post Colonial Anarchism (see further reading section), none of which are substantial enough to even remake this article into one about the book.

As I'm not sure how to fix the scope of this article, as it doesn't appear to meet notability criteria and as I can't think of a suitable redirect target, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst, what about the Further reading citations in the article? czar 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I think Ramnath's chapter of the Palgrave Handbook has the most to draw from, but even then her discussion of "postcolonial anarchism" is limited to two or three paragraphs. Unless there's something I'm missing, I think the most that could be gained from this is a perma-stub that could well be merged into the article on postcolonialism. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth pointing out that the term "postcolonial anarchism" seems to have been absent from scholarly literature before this article was created in 2007.[23] --Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banj brdo

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

While the fighting in this area during 1994 and 1995 was significant, and the two-volume CIA history of the wars in the former Yugoslavia contains significant coverage of those later events, this fighting (if in fact it happened at all) in 1993 is not covered at all in that source. If it happened, then it could be covered by a couple of sentences in the Majevica front (1992-1995) article. As things stand, I can't even find proof in reliable sources that it happened. Thirty years after the fact, if this had significant coverage in reliable sources, is would be apparent. It certainly doesn't appear to. Not notable in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by the same User. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above

Noah ^💬 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese films of 2026

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

WP:TOOSOON, It's premature to create this list. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article of this nature to exist, however I think the article creator should be allowed to work on it further and republish it in the future when more 2026 Japanese films get announced instead of immediately deleting it. I think an article like this should exist, just not right now. Beachweak (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Standard. Not that early. Useful for navigation. There is a List of American films of 2026, for example. -Mushy Yank. 02:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[24] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [25]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [34] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't meet the rigor required by WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added Tejano512 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated abv, new sources have been added. Are more sources needed? A good amount of articles are industry news and not PR. Tejano512 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it could definitely be improved (judging from the AI use) and more reliable sources should be added, WP:ORGCRIT requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for a company to be notable. I think the article's current citations suffice for this requirement. Additionally, this article was only created around two weeks ago; let it breathe a little more. Beachweak (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage fall short of required threshold for WP:NCORP. The sources are PR articles and just two[35][36] appear to be independent with WP:SIGCOV but not sure of their reliability in terms of RS. And even if those two are reliable it still not enough to sustain the article. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The sources are not very robust, so I agree that the article falls short of WP:NCORP. However, since USA Today lists it as one of America's top retailers, there's certainly some potential (once better sources can be found).--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about this topic. Considering this article was created in 2006 and only has one source, I doubt there will be any new or lasting coverage of this topic. Beachweak (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_24#Asmodel * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next to The DC Comics Encyclopedia, American Comics, Literary Theory, and Religion: The Superhero Afterlife also deals with Asmodel, but I believe both are plot summary. Which might suggest merging to List of DC Comics characters: A. Was there a WP:BEFORE search carried out and what where the results?

But to me another question is, if the DC version is actually the primary topic here, or if the original angel inspiring that character would be. If so, this article might be turned around to primarily cover the angel, and have a section for the DC character. The Dictionary of Angels has an entry on Asmodel. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I'm not sure on Angel notability since that is way outside of my coverage area, but we do have List of angels in theology as a potential AtD for this particular redirect if Asmodel is considered the primary topic over the DC character. Asmodel seems to have been removed from the list at some point in the past though, so it may be worth re-adding him in a light merge depending on what happens. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No energy to do a deeper search for secondary sources myself. So until further input a merge to List of DC Comics characters: A in the spirit of WP:AtD seems the best course of action to me for a topic which appears in secondary sources, but where stand-alone notability is unclear. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the removed section at the suggested target could be of help in a merge. Daranios (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors involved in some way in case they would like to give input here. @I dream of horses, CycloneYoris, Jhenderson777, and Quindraco:. Daranios (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. I'm not finding WP:SIGCOV myself. But merging is an WP:ATD that preserves the editing history. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([37][38][39][40][41][42]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([43][44][45][46]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Adams

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

Notability is not inherited, and founding a (maybe) notable company doesn't make the person notable. Found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayden-adams/ he was 30 under 30 in finance (2023) https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2023/finance Szenon (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is best to make a multiple page AFD when one nominates two related pages at the same time. It would be best to merge this AFD with the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uniswap_Labs one. IgelRM (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uniswap. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Veldsenk (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs. although The Economist has a review of it. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [47] [48] [49], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

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

Not WP:GNG, specifically – contra the First Mithridatic War itself – there not being significant coverage in reliable sources of Roman command structure at this specific period. Heavily reliant on unsourced interpretations of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY; WP:OR). See also previous discussion at WP:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both major authors of the page have been notified. Ifly6 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is not notable enough, and the writing is very confusing and even off-topic. There is nothing to save. The article has bugged me for several years now; I've tried to reread several times, in order to try to understand what is it about, but left confused every time. T8612 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Furius (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one step above gibberish, and certainly has the stamp of OR about it. Notability of the topic is also questionable (not the war itself, but this odd construct lifted from the war). Intothat darkness 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

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

Not finding anything that satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this school that devote significant coverage to this school are provided. This two sentence stub makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Zandamela

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

Draftify as I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment or his transfer to another school, which is what we call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. The pieces that seem to be more "in-depth" contain most of the same re-hashed information taken from his college bio, etc., in lieu of any new reporting. JTtheOG (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Africa, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this college athlete that devote significant coverage to this player are provided. The current version of the article does not say that he has played any college games. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently non-notable college athlete with only WP:ROUTINE coverage and no WP:SIGCOV, who could potentially become notable in the future. Frank Anchor 15:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala (elephant)

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

Single news event, in November an elephant was euthanized. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - a routine kind of news event, and WP:SIGCOV - multiple newspapers publishing the same story. Further "in 2014 a zoo acquired some elephants" sources added also seem to cover a routine news event. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having coverage from 2014 and 2024 establishes lasting notability. You claim that the coverage is "routine", but the vast majority of elephants don't receive widespread news coverage like this one, even when they die. If all elephants had this level of coverage it could be considered routine/normal, but they don't. EVENTCRITERIA also doesn't apply here because Kamala is an elephant, not an event. Even if this article was about the event of her death (which it is not), it still wouldn't be "routine coverage" because elephants with the same name as a major political figure dying within hours of a major political event and causing massive social media buzz is not a regular or common event. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries don't make someone (or something) notable. Day to day news announcements from a zoo do not add notability. The "major political figure" angle is a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SYNTH of a report from before the election combined with a report of who won after the election. Shows the story hit the internet "water cooler" but there would need to be SIGCOV after the election. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sri Lanka, Canada, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Zoological Park (United States)#Notable animals. It's certainly not unusual for large zoo animals to receive some coverage, particularly about their death; the fact that her name brought additional attention doesn't mean this short-lived buzz establishes notability. Since the main article has a section specifically for cases like this, per WP:NOPAGE a standalone article is not needed. The 2014 coverage is about three elephants that came together, not specifically about Kamala so I don't think that's lasting. There's also National Zoological Park (United States)#Elephant Trails. Reywas92^Talk 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas Andre🚐 05:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above- routine coverage for two instances does not SIGCOV or Notability make. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge per above. The 2014 news event is routine, and, while the 2024 one isn't, the fact that the coverage wasn't sustained makes me doubtful of the elephant's long-term notability, especially since there isn't an expectation of renewed coverage in the future as the election has already ended. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to User:Windborne Rider/Boys II Planet. WP:SNOW redirect by article creator. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boys II Planet

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

WP:TOOSOON + there's no announcement of confirmed cast members. Aidillia^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. Aidillia^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article I re-userfied it again so there's no need for this AfD. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to re-userfied it again, you should comment it here, this is not how it's work once it's already in AfD. You can't just moved it like that. Aidillia^(talk) 07:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crew-served weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Only one, apparently unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there's only one source because the creator was lazy. This is a very common term in military circles. I don't as yet have an opinion about Keep or Delete. Intothat darkness 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common concept of weapons systems. Lack of RS on the page not determinative. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, so please state which sources prove the article passes WP:NEXIST rather than just implying they might exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any kind of search before you nominated the article? The Google Books search alone turned up over 6000 hits, and Scholar over 600. Intothat darkness 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and everything seemed trivial. WP:GHITS is relevant here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 6000 hits is not trivial. That you choose to ignore this is concerning. Grossman's "On Combat" alone contains at least three references to crew-served weapons according to the Google book search, and one of those ties back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire." Both works are hardly trivial. Intothat darkness 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common military concept and term is frequently used in both specialist and general literature. Intothat darkness 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, please include valid sources instead of claiming they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established term and concept in military circles. Yes, the article is in a bad state now, but Wikipedia has no deadline. I have concerns about the nominator's mass nomination of weapon-type related articles over the last few days, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs. Furthermore, like others you have not expounded on what sources are there, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any part of my response pointed to me desiring to force people to change their mind, so it is not bludgeoning... On the contrary, I want to see what kinds of sources people are claiming to possess, which is a legitimate question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to know that it is BLUDGEONING. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1. Responding to everybody IS central to the definition of bludgeoning. 2. Nobody has made a particularly persuasive case yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect to Wiktionary: which already has an entry for it. Multiple routine mentions, or being a well-established term, aren't sufficient for notability per our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not shown. No objection to turning it into a redirect. Nurg (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing another week for discussion of the idea of redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few editors have claimed that there is sufficient sourcing for an article beyond a dictionary definition, yet no sources have been provided here. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is well accepted and frequently used. But it doesn't need an article. A dictionary definition is enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları

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

Was actually gonna do this some time ago. Anyway, this article has no sources (and been like that for a few years) and looking for possible source and there doesn't seem to be anything prove this article can still be rewritten and kept. Their official website seems to have been taken down, or perhaps never existed in the first place. The subject alone is likely non-notable, if not as much as Battle for Dream Island always tended to be. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in these sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3]. Also, 10 seconds on Wayback Machine yields dozens of snapshots of the official website listed in the external links section, so it's a poor WP:BEFORE by the nominator. Merko (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Danacı, Beril Özge (2022-08-08). "Türk Oyun Sektörünün İlklerinden - Şeyh Cehalet'le Savaştığımız Oyun İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Onedio (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.
^ Kocagöz, Yigilante (2014-08-22). "Lale Savaşçıları - Irospalar, Yobazlar ve 90'ların "Karanlık" Tanımı [Oyunlarda Türk Temsili - FauxPlayDosya] - Geekyapar!". Geekyapar (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.
^ Hürmen, Tuana Seda (2023-05-06). "Nostalji Günlüğü: İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Oyun Günlüğü (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources have been provided. Cortador (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Aslam

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Unsourced BLP. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference so it's not unreferenced, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has worked in numerous movies and has also been part of multiple television shows. Previously, the article relied on a single source, but I have now added several new sources to improve its credibility. The subject clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:ENT. Baqi:) (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands now there clearly is not a consensus for any course of action. Hopefulyy another week will remedy that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable actor, active since 90s, worked in multiple notable filmd and Tv Shows, passes WP:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Franks (landowner)

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

William Franks was a british landowner that helped in construction of Fitzrovia District, Percy Street, Rathbone Street and Charlotte Street. This article was marked for speedy deletion due to lack of importance in 2015 but was shortly unmarked to help the creator expand it. A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable. Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good rationale for deletion. Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is one of those really tragic cases where we have a genuine nice little story that's of interest, but it's in the wrong place. This article is basically a nice bit of local history research, but relies very, very heavily on primary sources of information. It should be published somewhere. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on secondary sources, not a place to publish research. I don't want to say delete because I enjoyed reading it, but it really, really doesn't belong here. Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Disagree with the keep vote. The deletion rationale is clearly that this is not notable. It does not meet GNG because there are no secondary sources. Perversely, contrary to the keep !vote, it looks like we are actually thinking of keeping it because of WP:ILIKEIT. Or rather, we like the original research done by the writer of the page. And yes, that is a nice collation of the information from primary sources. I hope that Philafrenzy has a copy, and would suggest that a userfied copy be made available to them if this is deleted. But it is not an encyclopaedic page. This is the wrong project for this information. A site that could make use of much of this information would be Family Search, which allows user content to provide referenced primary source information about people. See [50]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at this editor's other AfD nominations, the rationale is almost always essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is why most of them have been rejected out of hand. They have also stated that they nominate articles for AfD because it's "relaxing"! Comments like A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable and Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable (italics mine) tend to imply this rather than a decent, properly thought out reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that there were indeed rather a lot of nominations in quick succession, and that tends to overwhelm the effort at AfD. I am striking my delete in favour of a procedural/speedy keep. This was discussed recently in another context, and is sometimes allowed. My hope is that this will be closed as keep or no consensus with no prejudice against a better argued renomination (although perhaps not by the same nom.). My thoughts are unchanged. We don't have any secondary sources here, and this is the wrong project for histories synthesised from primary sources, but if we are going to take them down, let's do it in a more careful manner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I understand the reasoning, I do not believe this qualifies for a speedy keep. The nomination mentions notability, and that is almost always the core argument in deletion discussions, and several comments indicate they don't think this should be an article even if they don't agree with the reasons presented in the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lekressner

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

I was unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Massachusetts, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan Patrick Burke

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as higher bars at WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. Note, not every Bram Stoker Award recipient is inherently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Authors. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article having a single primary source since 2006 when it was created. Before search indicate that this person fails WP:NAUTHOR. Mekomo (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While not offering a specific recommendation right now (WP:BEFORE still ongoing), the SPA/COI/PROMO nature of the article's creation is somewhat difficult to overlook. Also, while I've found (and added) a handful of sources to address the otherwise almost entirely uncited body, none of these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. A search for biographical sources returns only the types of WP:INTERVIEWS (common for most authors and not contributory to notability) and the types of "writers bio" written by publishers/distributors/etc (not WP:INDEPENDENT and therefore also not normally supportive of a notability claim). As the subject is Irish, I searched in the usual "mainstream" national news sources in Ireland (Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, etc) - and could find NOTHING AT ALL. As the subject is from County Waterford, I also looked in "local" Waterford news sources - and could only find this "listicle" - where the subject is only mentioned in passing. Will continue with BEFORE when I have time. But, as it stands, I can find nothing to support retention... Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Danacı, Beril Özge (2022-08-08). "Türk Oyun Sektörünün İlklerinden - Şeyh Cehalet'le Savaştığımız Oyun İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Onedio (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[2] Kocagöz, Yigilante (2014-08-22). "Lale Savaşçıları - Irospalar, Yobazlar ve 90'ların "Karanlık" Tanımı [Oyunlarda Türk Temsili - FauxPlayDosya] - Geekyapar!". Geekyapar (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[3] Hürmen, Tuana Seda (2023-05-06). "Nostalji Günlüğü: İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Oyun Günlüğü (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[1]

[2]

[3]