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

< October 06	October 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

College Lacrosse Records

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

Article has been previously speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A10 as a duplicate article of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. The article re-created again by the same creator in the exact same state it was in prior to deletion (including apparently the CSD#A10 tag, which has been in the article since the very first edit). The creator then contested the CSD that they themselves nominated the article for.

At first glance the content of the article appears to be all duplicated, but looking closely there are some very slight differences in the content of the tables. It seems that this list is supposed to be a more general list of all college lacrosse records, while the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records is only for records that occurred under the NCAA - but obviously there is significant overlap.

If the additions do indeed turn out to be notable per WP:NLIST, then the question should be whether we need an article that is almost a duplicate, or if the scope of the existing NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records should be expanded to allow inclusion of the new information. RachelTensions (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the article title currently does not follow WP:AT conventions and the whole lead paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic manner.RachelTensions (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A bit of history first: I moved the first version of this to List of college lacrosse records, and only then noticed that it was nearly identical to NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records, with some unsourced commentary added. Article creator then copied and pasted it back to the current title, so I nominated both for speedy A10. Much shouting followed from creator about "hated Wikipedia law-obsessed editors" on the talk pages, and "why can't you just leave the GD article alone", etc. I offered to draftify it, and was ignored.

Anyway. It's presently still a CFORK of NCAA Division I men's lacrosse records. College lacrosse is played outside of North America though. A single article for all NCAA records alone would breach WP:Article size, and an article that also included records for college lacrosse in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. would be even bigger. Keeping the records in separate articles will be just fine, perhaps with a template to link them all. I'm happy to provide and maintain the template. Wikishovel (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Docere

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

This article appears to fall outside of Wikipedia's scope, particularly the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page exists entirely to document the usage of this one Latin word, a goal best covered by Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, such an entry requires information "beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry" and "information on the social or historical significance of the term." The article attempts to fulfill this requirement by citing quotes from Cicero about rhetoric, but these examples are largely unrelated to the actual word "docere" and are more relevant to the Ciceronian understanding of oration. Such information belongs more in a separate article about rhetoric or Cicero or oration than it does its own stand-alone article. Consider how Wikipedia has an article on Sexuality in ancient Rome but does not have a distinct article for the Latin verb "amare." Even the verb "delectare," despite being mentioned within the same context of Cicero describing the duties of rhetoric, does not have its own article, only a redirect. Graearms (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find use of the term, but this isn't enough for an article. The article now seems to be how one person used the term in his time, rather than an extensive etymology of the word. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term fits more into a dictionary than Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orator (Cicero), which already discusses (albeit briefly) the goals of rhetoric that Cicero identified, including the subject of this article. There is clearly more here than a dictionary definition, but it would be better treated together with its source and potentially the other related concepts. That appears to be the reason why delectare redirects to that article. The discussion here isn't unencyclopedic; it's just misplaced—not to mention undictionarian. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak In-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Hyon-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1894–95 Kent Football League

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

Non-notable individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm, it's 1894 and there are no such things as computers, how about newspaper searches. Did you do that?? I hardly feel you'd be able to run the right searches to understand if it passes GNG or not. Govvy (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Kent Senior Cup

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

Individual season for non-league county football tournament, fails WP:GNG and no significant coverage Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkeo Corner, Indiana

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

Only evidence found was for the post office; otherwise, a "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity Broking Services

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

I found brief mentions like this and this. Lacks non-routine, direct, significant coverage. Gheus (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't believe an unreferenced article has existed for 17 years! Created by a single purpose editor and possible WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin.com.au

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

Fails WP:CORP: non-notable crypto exchange, no coverage outside of WP:TRADES. There is brief coverage about this company in Australian publications. A redirect to parent company is possible. Gheus (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Independent Reserve: seems to be a sub-unit of the Reserve company, I'd put a note there. This doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Lebanon, Ottawa

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

No inline citations, but the links provided are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Lebanon, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Canada–Lebanon relations#Resident_diplomatic_missions. There's really nothing worth merging. Mangoe (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping the building might be notable as a heritage structure, but I can't find much about that... As now sourced, we basically just have confirmation that it exists at this locaiton. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be certain without researching the history, but although The Glebe is one of Ottawa's older suburbs, it doesn't look architecturally significant: one of many random-looking suburban villas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Federalism

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

This article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR about a term so rarely used that it appears to have meant something different every time it was used, with no discernible concept behind it. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: New Federalism is not a rarely used term, appearing in American history and government textbooks (e.g. "We The People" from McGraw Hill). Should the page be rewritten? Maybe. Deleted? No. Pie GGuy (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you please rewrite the article, citing this textbook and other reliable sources if you think the page is worth something? Because otherwise there is no point in keeping it in its current (miserable) shape really. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 10:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Pie GGuy. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary This is a very poor and rambling essay filled with unfocused detours and things that ended up having absolutely no force (45's executive order is the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in presidential form and had no true force of law). More appropriate as a dic-def than an article. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT this page contains too many problems to be salvaged, specifically WP:OR and terrible referencing. It's not possible to establish how much of what is currently on the page is the personal opinion of a main editor and how much can be justified from the sources. Let's just delete and hope someone else can have a better stab at writing a good quality page. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick Google Scholar shows the term consistently being used in the same way as described in the article [1][2][3][4][5], i.e. a political philosophy of transferral of power back to the states associated with Nixon and Reagan. Shapeyness (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shapeyness. Sourcing cited above is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article's issues alone do not justify its deletion; the concept seems to have reliable coverage. The issues can be tagged or dealt with by editors.Yue 🌙 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you: deletion is not cleanup. If the subject is notable but the content is poor, rewrite or stubify. There is no policy basis for "Delete per WP:TNT".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access MicrOpay

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

Fails WP:NCORP: routine M&A news. Redirect to The Access Group is also possible. Gheus (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Access Group. The article fails GNG, as there is not enough significant coverage. But redirecting to the parent's company makes sense. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sachs

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, about us pages and other misc/non-specific coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:SICOV? Ruccc (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruccc, Scoop creep mean WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Ruccc (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources from article and WP:BEFORE do not meet the minimum guideline. Could not even find three sources that satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done a quick search in a Swedish media archive and there seems to be plenty of (significant) Swedish newspaper coverage. I'll make time at some point in the coming days to go though the most promising hits and add them to the article (or retract this statement if it turns out that my first glance was mistaken). /Julle (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a long history dating back to 2007 associated with this title, including articles about this person that were cut down to redirects, redirects from this person to a company, and articles about a fictional person. If this person fails biographical notablity, a redirect should be kept as an alternative to deletion to preserve the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've taken a look at some of the articles in the Swedish news archive now and I'm convinced this easily passes WP:GNG. For example, he gets three pages in Dagens Nyheter (the dominating daily newspaper in Sweden) in 2017, and nine pages (haven't found the online equivalent) in Dagens Industri (the most important financial newspaper in Sweden) a couple of months ago. Much of this is interview material, but not all of it, and there's enough other material here to build something from. There are substantial reporting on his role as CEO of Proventus and of him leaving it (I've added an example). He was one of the hosts of Sommar (radio program) in 2013, where every episode generates reviews in national media; I've added one of them. In short, his role not just as a entrepeneur but as a powerful person in Swedish culture has been reflected in the Swedish news, and this means there's enough for us to build an encyclopedic entry on. /Julle (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect as alternative to deletion. A review of the references shows that they are press releases or passing mentions.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	birthday.se	Appears to be a file of birthdays of people. This establishes that he exists.	Yes	No	Probably not. Probably user-provided.	?
2	www.dn.se/kultur-noje/	An interview	No.	Yes	Yes	No
3	en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagens_industri	This is probably an improperly entered reference, but it links to a Wikipedia article. So it is either incorrectly formed or circular	?	Not about the subject	No.	?
4	news.cision.com	Announcement that he has left a company.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Yes	Probably	No
5	www.dagensmedia.se	Another announcement that he has left the company.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Yes	Probably	No
6	www.di.se/nyheter	A press release about a job change	No.	Yes.	Probably	No
7	www.realtid.se	A list of attendees at Davos	Yes	No, passing mention.	Probably	Yes
8	www.opensocietyfoundations.org	A profile as one of the directors of the foundation	No.	Yes	Probably	No
9	web.archive.org/web	An account of the founding of the Höj Rösten Foundation	Yes	No, passing mention.	Probably	No
10	www.dn.se	A press release that "Sachs wants to scrutinize capitalism"	No.	Yes	Probably	No
11	www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum	A Forbes contributor piece	No.	No, passing mention of subject.	No.	No
12	www.apolitical.foundation	Profiles of board members	No.	Yes	No.	No
13	www.resume.se	Another press release	No.	Yes	No.	No

This source assessment table is based on this version of the article: [6]. References were added to the article while I was assessing the sources, and I revised the table. The addition of more sources was not material.

As noted above, there is an extensive history, which includes previous versions of articles on the subject, as well as redirects, and an article about a fictional person. This article should be cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, but I don't think this reflects the reality of some of the sources in the article. Comments below.

1. Agreed.

2. Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary. Described above.

3. No, the wiki link follows the norm for how we cover press material, same as other sources in the article – the name of the publication is linked. Not the name of the article, which is an offline source (or accessible though sv:Mediearkivet). Not all sources are online sources. This is nine pages in Dagens Industri, mostly but not only interview material. Described above. Can be checked by pretty much anyone with a Swedish university account (or access to Mediearkivet, provided to some editors by Wikimedia Sweden). As noted above, I've not been able to locate the online equivalent.

4. Agreed.

5. Disagree. Unlikely this is merely a press release, for four reasons: a) Unlike Cision, Dagens Media does produce journalism, which merits that we take a closer look; b) it's the same day as the press release in 4., but with different content, noting things which were not present in that press release c) it's signed (Eva Wisten), d) it contains material unlikely to have been in a press relase, such as noting that he'll "be on paternal leave and think". This reads like a reaction to the press release in 4., but someone actually having written an article based on other sources.

6. Definitely not. This is an article, takes up most of a page in the leading Swedish financial newspaper, and doesn't read at all like a press release to me. Why do you think it would be one?

7. Agreed.

8. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

10. Uncertain. Not terribly interesting as a source anyway.

11. Agreed.

12. Agreed.

13. Agreed.

14. (In the current version.) Missing. Added before this was posted, but after the assessment, I suppose.

Could you please explain your reasoning around 2, 3, 5 and 6? /Julle (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On ref 2 it does say the Pallas met him for conversation. I can't read it fully as paywalled, but it does look an interview. scope_creep^Talk 06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Much of this is interview material, but not all of it", I wrote above, and then "Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary" in the comment to the source assessment above. (: /Julle (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other material is likely provided by the PR agency. It put the reference in the context of a interview and can't be used to prove notability. It not a valid. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Ref 5 it reads a profile generated from a press-release. That fact that its bylined doesnt add much to it. It reads like a 300 word profile and is not in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 06:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a press release from exactly the same day (4.), that would mean that they'd sent out two different press releases on the same topic, with different information (since much of the background in 5. is missing in 4.). To me, that seems much more unlikely than a journalist taking a look at the press release in 4. and writing something based on other sources than the press release (since it contains information not in the press release in 4).

(It's still not a longer piece, no.) /Julle (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks and reads like conjecture, is not indepth and is not valid. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Ref 3. The reference format is fine. This is a financial paper similar to Bloomberg and the Financial Times. Its is likely paid PR. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intimately familiar with Bloomberg and the Financial Times, but this is the main article in this issue of the newspaper. I find it extremely unlikely that this would be paid PR, that's not how Dagens Industri works and they'd completely resign their position as the dominating financial newspaper in Sweden if they presented paid material as journalism. Why would we assume it's paid PR? /Julle (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is mechanism used to market themselves. Billionaires and millionaire are extraordinary secretive, they don't like their business dealing and their private lifes being made pubic, generally speaking. They build a public facade, their brand in the modern era using PR agencies so they are always shown in a good light. That is known thing. Lastly, its not necessarily paid material as journalism. You need to read up on it. All papers take the marketing dollar, more so since the coming of social media when it the industry was absolutely eviscerated, more or less right across the world from about 2007-2008. Its recovered now because many of them are behind paywalls and legislation that has come in to protect the industry but for many years, journalism as a practice was hit very badly. So the boundary between real journalism and all this other "crap" that came in was blurred and they used that money to effectively save their industry. Real journalism is making a return but for certain things like this, you don't know if its paid for. You really have to look, particularly for this type of source. So it could be potentially be a good reference right enough, but its hard to verify and I'm not confident considering the subject matter, that its not been paid for. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are proposing redirect, please specify a target. At different times in its history, this page was a redirect to two different targets, neither of which currently mentions the person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Sweeden he is more relevant on the media and film industry, but at an internatiional level he is more known for business and political involvements. I recently saw this interview at Swedish main business/financial newspaper Dagens Industri but he talks more about philantropy and politics than business. --Ruccc (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source analysis has been done and it has no real secondary coverage and interviews can't be used to establish notabilty. scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the point above later (the media archive I use to access the sources has been down for a couple of days, and I want to make sure I properly assess everything I say, and not argue to keep just because that's what my evaluating landed in above), but I'd like to point out that there's no agreement in the conversation above that we have a source analysis which reliably shows this. /Julle (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a proper analysis and you so far you have not produced a single piece of evidence to prove the man is notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Securities

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

Fails WP:NCORP: short-live non-notable businesss, routine one or two news articles after liquidation. Gheus (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 7 October 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.

Dexter in the Dark

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK unsourced and my before turned up nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On ProQuest, on the first page, there are reviews from:

The Record (NJ newspaper)
The Age (Australian newspaper)
The News Press (Florida paper)
The Booklist
The Guardian
Kirkus
Boston Globe
3+ other papers

And this is without searching any other site, or going past the first page of results, probably a ton more PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to check proquest but how in-depth are those? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a review of the book from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Dexter is a very popular book series. I can point to similar reviews in the Tallahassee Democrat, the Winston-Salem Journal, the San Francisco Examiner, etc, etc, etc. Try checking out Newspapers.com next time. Toughpigs (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the above, I found reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist. All these meet NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw I clearly didn't do my proper research. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:18, 8 October 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.

Scott Resnick

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article is not notable whatsoever, coverage doesn't even seem routine. Subject does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:NPOL at all. Additionally, the article was marked for deletion per a previous AfD, but was recreated at some point. Seems cut and dry what should be done here. -- Talthiel (talk)

Additionally, I am nominating the following artcles for deletion for many of the same reasons, primarily failing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Antsiferov

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not great in establishing notability and BEFORE does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madrugador88 Oh your voice does count please, that's not how it works. The relationship to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him did not provide sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mahoran writers

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

Unreliable sources, and nearly all of the individuals on this list are not notable. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Lists of people, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ironland

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

Nominated for deletion as a WP:Before search yielded zero results from reliable sources. The search returned multiple wiki pages and videos from the content creator listed in the article. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG, and frankly seems like some internet joke rather than a serious topic warranting inclusion. Thanks. Wibbit23 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find WP:RS discussing this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth - There's been a bit of an offwiki campaign to try and force this thru AfC, with the draftspace title (Draft:Ironland) consistently being rejected before finally being salted. This was created in userspace (which isn't as heavily watched) and moved a few months later, after the account had hit autoconfirmed status. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Walkom

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

No evidence of WP:N. A WP:BEFORE search only returns lists of his articles, and a few critiques by some rabidly pro-Israel website that doesn't seem reliable. BilletsMauves^€500 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Has been a long-time columnist for the Toronto Star, wrote a few encyclopedia articles [7]. Mostly due to the fact that he's cited/quoted in more than a few books [8], implying some notability in his field. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And the Washington Post [9], he's also mentioned here by name [10], here [11] and here [12] implying notice in the academic field for his work. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear the nominator's opinion on these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaOne

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

it lacks sufficient independent, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the article relies heavily on promotional language and primary sources, which compromises its neutrality and fails to provide verifiable third-party coverage. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This nom seems like a stretch and over reach to me. There are plenty of in-depth resources from independent 3rd party sources just by clicking the news or books tab on google. They are published several times a week. The nominator has several warning and a controversial editing history. Just seems like there are better things to spend time on. SmileyShogun (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SmileyShogun (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My company uses NinjaOne for our RMM services, and I needed to do research on it to become more familiar, and this Wikipedia article has a plethora of good reference articles and resources. There is no need to delete the article, and would be a loss of information for others like me. Jonkorf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Jonkorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator doesn't even make a legit rebuttal, they are attacking the nominator. – The Grid (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Georges

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

Cant't see any claim to notability; the band for which he sang is (imo) non-notable & up for deletion, otherwise I would redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, News presenter of the main TV channel in Luxembourg and of a famous band there as well…, for Luxembourg standards he is quite notable. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are interested in sources that show that notability. We would be happy if you shared some. Geschichte (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Famous band? You are kidding.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC) I also see that the only refs you have come up with are to self-published stuff about this entirely non-notable band. Plus a run of the mill entry from the TV station for which he works.TheLongTone (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s famous in Luxembourg, I assume you aren’t from there… originally, when I made the article, I simply translated the original article at the Lëtzebuerg Wikipedia to English and added a couple more sources and an info box. I just don’t see what the fuss is about here… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If is famous in Luxembourg you should be able to add some solid sources to the article. At present there is nothing there to indicate any notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to falling short of WP:GNG. Given that the article mentions a few roles in various notable-or-maybe-notable works, deletion to allow for search results seems more appropriate than redirection (and noting that Pagan Lorn, Georges' band, is also currently at AfD). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The currently cited sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and after performing WP:BEFORE, I was unable to find any significant sources. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 17:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving an editor a little more time to find better sources. Otherwise, it's probably a deletion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oronike Odeleye

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

She is only discussed by reliable, independent sources in the context of the Mute R. Kelly movement, which she founded. Even the awards she won are all in relation to this movement. The only source I could find that was not related to the R Kelly stuff was this puff piece, which was published at the same time that she had gotten a PR company to publish this other puff piece that looks the same. In fact, most sources that talk about her art career are either not independent or look like very routine annoucements. We would do better by leaving this as a redirect to Mute R. Kelly. Badbluebus (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Women, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Badbluebus (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. I have found a lot of coverage about them using Google and other search engines Monophile 💬 10:57, 01 October2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Zimidar, see investigation)

Can you show those sources? Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that she passes GNG. Here's another article that isn't currently cited by the page. NHCLS (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview, it's not independent from the subject, most of it is Odeleye talking about herself. Badbluebus (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mute R. Kelly as AFD. There's no cognizable claim to notability in the article aside from her connection with this movement. I couldn't find additional materials, and I agree that the interview article identified by NHCLS should be disregarded for the purpose of establishing notability. If she has more accomplishments in future the history will be there to resurrect this as a full article. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She meets WP:BASIC with plenty of WP:SIGCOV, such as #1, #2, #3, that show her WP:N is not only about the Mute R. Kelly movement, as per the nom claimed. She is not a case of WP:1E, even let's say she is, the GL also affirmed a single article per: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majlis Al-Noor

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are event listings. scope_creep^Talk 16:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at a deletion discussion (WP:RFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a reliable source, pass WP:GNG (With 10,70000+ daily Circulation Mathrubhumi news reports : [13] ) and (With 350,000+ daily Circulation - Madhyamam report: [14], (Suprabhaatham report: [15]) other report [16],[17] , It is an event and Recitation#Islam(Sunni Islam) audience Like this Qawwali ~~ --Spworld2 (talk) 1:47,2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ref 1 [18] Is organising a prayer meeting. It looks like event listing
Ref 2 [19] Is an event listing and has no byline.
Ref 3 [20] This is an event listing.
Ref 4 Book entry
Ref 5 [21] This is an event listing

None of the reference constitute a WP:SECONDARY source that can prove the person is notable. There may be something through the book, although I'm not sure. It could be biography and needs an expert to look at it. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders

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

This list is almost exclusively sourced to official Longhorns Baseball materials, principally its 2023 fact book There is no evidence that independent, secondary sources discuss Texas Longhorns baseball statistical leaders as a defined group; as a result, this subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Lists, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: There's a 17-page chapter of this book (pages 27–43) dedicated to Texas Longhorns baseball with some statistical data, but it's a lot of coverage to wade through to see if there's anything that can help establish notability for this topic. Left guide (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zerzan

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

Heavily promotional resume-like article with no established and WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RSes Amigao (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Cabiles

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Philippines. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not very much coverage about this person, this is just a quick mention [22] and that's about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, how different was the original article which was deleted in 2017 to the one that is up for AFD now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue Club 2

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

Fails WP:GNG. MouseNJoypad doesn't seem like a reliable source. Suggesting a redirect to Cue Club#Cue Club 2 as an alternative to deletion. I would have redirected without an AfD but there was someone who removed the notability tag. Mika1h (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Cue sports. Mika1h (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see the page retained. MouseNJoypad wrote a genuine, independent review of the game shortly after release, even though it is one of the smaller gaming sites. Cue Club 2 is also a regularly updated product, and relevant as PC cue sports simulation. Zanari (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single review is generally considered insufficient to pass WP:GNG by even the most lax metric. While single sources can sometimes justify pages, the general consensus for something as small as a review is that at least 3 from clearly reliable sources are needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layover

AfDs for this article:

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

Well, here we are again already, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover was closed as a soft delete just a few days ago. This was undeleted to be draftified, which is fine, but then it was restored to mainspace without actually being improved. Some alleged new sources were added, but the actual content was not improved at all, so this still has the exact same issues and is just a repost of the same article with some potential sources that clearly have no actually been used at all, tacked on to the bottom. I'm not seeing what the rush was to get this WP:DICDEF article back into mainspace. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the speedy move to main space, this talk page conversation refers.[23] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not every article is going to have earth-shattering importance. This seems like a fine (albeit basic) start article with room for improvement. Per the discussion Sirfurboy linked, it shouldn't have been soft deleted in the first place and there is nothing wrong with leaving it here in mainspace for future improvement. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is borderline. The problem is not in the lack of non-dictionary sources (there are plenty based on my experience), but in the fact that "layover" in different industries has different meanings. While related, the common definition would be very vague ("scheduled downtime in transit"?). Other than that, the layover in mass transit is meant to compensate for schedule slips and accommodate the driver's trip to the bathroom, while in air travel the layover is intended for the passenger to change the plane or the mode of travel. As a thought experiment, I would have no problem writing either Layover (mass transit) and Layover (long-distance travel). So my proposal is to create these two articles and change the one subject to this AfD into a disambiguation. --Викидим (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are aspects to long-distance travel layovers that are about accommodating the needs of crews and equipment, not just passengers. I'd argue the approach would be to flesh this article out and if the differences warrant two articles down the road, then WP:SPLIT. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find a single source that treats layovers for buses and planes as a single subject, thus the proposal. Without such source, we might be forced to rely on WP:OR for a common definition in the lead, and it might be lame (see my attempt above and the definition already in the lead). Викидим (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The massive amount of coverage meeting WP:GNG should have been investigated WP:BEFORE AFD. Such as the Washington Post and New York Times citations I just added to the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am not seeing in any of the sources in the article or elsewhere is anything that suggests a layover is an encyclopaedic subject rather than an English word. For instance, the very first reference, used to support the opening sentence of the lead is an article in the Seattle Ties headlined Long layover? How about a workout at an airport gym?. Now we know that SIGCOV counts even if the article is not about the the encyclopaedic subject, as long as the subject gets significant coverage in the article; in this article we have coverage about what to do on a layover. But because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it cannot be the case that a source provides significant coverage merely because an article uses the proposed subject as an English noun. And to use that article and others like it to try to define a layover looks like WP:OR. Worse, the OR is wrong in identifying a layover with a waypoint - hardly an exact synonym.
So, what sources do we have that suggest layovers are an encyclopaedic subject? I think there is no doubt this page needs change. Is that change deletion? Is it actually more than one subject per Викидим? Cunard moved it back to mainspace without improvement to preserve incoming redirects, but that did not preclude that they felt improvement was necessary. What exactly is the encyclopaedic subject here, and what sources speak to that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press article you mention discusses airports now being designed to accommodate long layovers with attractive amenities. That's an encyclopedic topic related to the evolution of airline travel, not a dictionary definition. This facet has already been added to the article.

The New York Times has covered the trend of "international airlines adding free stopovers and other incentives to make the midway hub a second destination." The Times has been covering Iceland's use of this technique to boost tourism in the country since at least 1967.

Adventurous travelers make use of their few hours in a country to go on an abbreviated tour of the best sites and restauraunts. The travel hack is notable enough that Anthony Bourdain filmed a TV show named for and dedicated to the concept.

Lots of encyclopedic content here. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of encyclopedic content here. I don't think I agree. Things to do on a layover cannot be the encyclopaedic subject of a layover itself. And that is the problem with sourcing to a bunch of news media articles or travel guides. I think we need to take a step back and consider the information need of a reader. What would someone be searching for if they were searching for "layover"? What is the encyclopaedic subject that informs and educates, beyond the simple dictionary definition of what a layover is? Your last link may hint at something, but it is not itself the source for it. Is there a subject around designed-in layovers as a means for breaking travel, perhaps linked to regeneration or the importance of the layover hubs themselves? Examples come to mind from antiquity onwards on that. Can we find some good secondary sources that discuss that? And if that is the subject, are we sure that layover, and not some other term (such as stopover) correctly describes the subject? I am not saying there is no subject here. There may well be one. But the page as it is just looks like a glorified dictionary definition, so that scope needs a bit of thought and better sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several bits about how layovers impact passenger choice and airline operations to the air travel section, including academic studies. I think it's clear that from the beginning layover would meet WP:N even if the article wasn't up to that standard, sources exists to improve the article (as has now been done). For those reasons, keeping it in mainspace for improvement is the right move rather than deletion. (I'd also disagree that even in its at-nomination state it was a "glorified dictionary definition"; a stub or poor start, sure, but it included more than simple definitions.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sources section, there are couple sources (books) that contain reasonably lengthy treatises on the subject, for a total of about two printed pages. There are many more very solid sources on the subject, as it is pretty important for transportation industry planners. I am not sure we need to use the mass media in the article at all, but we definitely are not relying on newspapers for WP:SIGCOV here. Викидим (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: who moved the article back into mainspace. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the ping, Natg19. There are still 15 links to layover that need to be restored. Would AWB or some other automated tool help with restoring the links?
Lay over, layover bay, and break of journey (which probably were redirects to layover) will also need to be restored. Would someone help with this? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty common word, there are potentially hundreds of incoming links here. IMHO they should be reviewed manually, AWB would definitely help, still it seems to me like many hours of tedious work here. Викидим (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Drayuk

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

Not notable and no SIGCOV. Looks like promotion only PPOP101 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The subject of the article is a member of the Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) and would be notable under WP:NPOL. Like with the recently-nominated Vyacheslav Kutovyi, this article was written today (October 7). I agree with the original AfD nominator that this article needs work, especially more sources and a keen eye to check for POV language and puffery, but the source provided right now, from investigative journalist Denys Bigus, makes me think that there is additional information that can be found for this article. Bkissin (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree here too. nice idea and background check @Bkissin Taking off shortly (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Elected member of national legislature - satisfies WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former People's Deputy of Ukraine. Ceriy (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Kutovyi

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

Looks like promotion of the not important person; doesn’t meet WPBIO and SIGCOV. Not notable PPOP101 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article served as a Member of Parliament for Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada), so would be notable per WP:NPOL. That being said, the article relies on one source (from the Rada itself). Looking at the history, it looks like the article was just created today, so I am inclined to suggest keeping the article for now to see if work can be done to bring up the quality. Bkissin (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree. brilliant thought! Taking off shortly (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Elected member of national legislature - satisfies WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former People's Deputy of Ukraine. Ceriy (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Merlin

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

Page originally created as Chip Merlin and deleted pursuant to this discussion back in May. Article recreated by another user as an alternative name William Merlin . Still fails notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After the SOCKs in the original discussion were blocked and page deleted, new user comes to Talk:S/V_Merlin (a yacht owned by the subject of the deleted page) and argued for a new page for him. After being told the subject was not notable, page was recreated under alternative name. Approved through AfC and will ping the reviewer who likely did not see it was previously deleted as it was submitted under alternative name. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pinging previous participants (other than the SOCK participants who are now blocked) @Let'srun:, @IOProfessor:, @Doczilla:, @Anatomyoffear:, @Hydronium Hydroxide:, and @Ca: who reviewed through AfC.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too thought the notability was marginal when I accepted the draft. I have no opinions either way. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens, not a big deal. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have recently undertaken a project to make sure that we have articles on the top 250 largest law firms in the United States, of which we currently have about 200. On the basis of that investigation, I can definitively say that this firm is not even in the top thousand. The firm founded by this individual is not encyclopedically notable, and the individual is somewhat less so. BD2412 T 22:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the complex situation I’m navigating, especially given the past involvement of editors who submitted this page. I appreciate your efforts in addressing malicious users and problematic content. However, experiences like this discourage individuals, including myself, from pursuing the article creation process in the future, which I believe is contrary to the platform’s intent. That said, I respect the community’s decision. I had believed the owner of the S/V Merlin met Wikipedia’s notability requirements, but it seems I placed too much emphasis on that belief. CrimsonGrove (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Men and a Baby (franchise)

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

Similar to Rosemary's Baby discussion as a franchise here, I can not find much to apply WP:SIGCOV which addresses the topic of this series in detail (see WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail") as well as MOS:FILMSERIES which suggests "an article would also benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole, or at least commentators who compare later films to their predecessors".

While there has been a lot of effort and work to put this together sources within the article are either about individual topics (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, the Numbers, etc.). Of the few that discuss the films with a bit more depth, they primarily discuss the first film, with no oversight or commentary on it as a series outside a mention of a sequel.

On my own research to try to expand the article, it was similarly limited to usually a single sentence with no signifigant coverage. Overviews just state the first film received sequels and remakes, with no commentary on the topic. This is seen in articles like Empire here or Yahoo! Life here While I looked through pages of google books to find information on it as a franchise or series, it had similar results (either in relation to the careers of Nimoy, in context of Hollywood remaking American films here (University of California Press), or the first film for various historical reasons (place in 80s cinema, etc.) here (Rutgers University Press), here), and again, even these were very brief mentions of even just the first film. Placing the films name into searches into the Wikipedia Library or Google Scholar predominantly have articles about Hollywood Remaking the first film as a franchise here, or others going into detail on the how the first film treats masculinity in film, and other gender studies topics.

Content within the article and on my own predominantly discusses the first film either in the context of popular hollywood films of the 1980s, the career of the actors and director Leonard Nimoy (with only brief mentions to the series),

- Den of Geek here, while it seems less like a news blurb and a proper retrospective, is mostly comparing the French-language film that inspired it, and the original hit film. There isn't any information/content/reception about the follow-ups or the film as a franchise/series.
Other sources that go more into detail such as Eighties Kids appears to not pass WP:REPUTABLE ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it appears to be an extension of a popular Facebook nostalgia page.

The article in its current state might even fail MOS:FILMSERIES which states "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films [...] Exceptions may include franchise articles where films are one of several notable and interrelated components (TV series, comics, etc.)." The "Baby Daddy" series does not appear to be related to the films in any coroporate way with the article only stating it was "inspired" by it. The article on the series itself makes no mention of its relation to the films or series. On trying to find a connection myself, I only found the LA Times calling the series derivative of the film, not connected (LA Times: here. The State Journal-Reigster here) Seemingly not different than lets say My Baby's Daddy, which also seems unrelated. here. (Daily Collegian). Or from the article itself withBitch Media which goes into detail comparing to the two works, but makes no suggestion on any canonical or business acumen that they are realted in-universe or through ownership of the brand.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the plots of individual works with critical citations going only towards the film themselves MOS:FILMSERIES suggests above. Without comparisons. This may fall under WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

Please note, that voting keep or delete on this is not in relation to whether a series exists or not, its whether there is enough discussion from the sources in question to currently make this an article that follows our guidelines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little bit long of a rationale, but just on a cursory glance this definitely isn't a franchise in any sense, and this is the first time I've heard of Baby Daddy being related to it in any way. This is simply walled-garden WP:MADEUP and there's no sign that the Disney+ movie is in any process of filming. Nate • (chatter) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two films and one (seemingly unrelated) TV series are not a franchise. Even with a reboot planned, WP:CRYSTAL still applies. This "franchise" article also does not abide by MOS:FILMSERIES, as the nom notes. One TV series does not seem enough to make this exception as detailed in the MOS, and there are no sources of in-depth coverage independent of the individual films or series themselves, failing notability of this supposed franchise. The amount of poorly sourced and questionale statements in the lead alone is a cause for concern about the lack of coverage and evidence supporting what this article is trying to get across. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. Discuss renaming and cuts on TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Trailblazer101: No sources identify this as a "franchise", making it a case of WP:SYNTH from the cited sources. Redirect seems pointless because this is an unlikely search term, if entered as the title. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Mushy Yank's argument -- move to an Index Article would be more constructive, than outright deletion. As for the Baby Daddy connections to Three Men and a Baby movies, see here, here and here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Out of curiosity, what is directly in those sources you would like us to find? Both state similarities, while the TVOvermind article seems to note the author of the article has not even watched the first film in its entirety... I appreciate your diligence, I just don't know what is the connection anyone should make or what you are implying. [Update: Per your addition here, the La Times link also just seems to call the film a rip-off of the first film ("an unapologetic rip-off of “Three Men and a Baby,”") and no other discussion on a connection. I apologize, but I do not see what anyone involved with the discussion is supposed to pull from those articles.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Also, if Baby Daddy did somehow become a part of this 'franchise' you invented (as the article creator)...then its credits would not have only included a 'based on' credit for Coline Serreau, but the original American writers Jim Cruickshank and James Orr would have also not only gotten the same credits, but likely executive producer credits and profit participation. The Hollywood unions are very strict on making sure any idea based on another work gets those originators credits, and the ideas for both the films and the series are very different, especially in headcount. The only two things they share are literally having "Baby" in the title and common library ownership. That's it. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources so far don't do a good job of establishing Baby Daddy as being part of the same franchise, only as having a similar premise. The remake hasn't entered production, and the last update was in 2022. We're not really hitting MOS:FILMSERIES, and I don't think a set index makes sense for two extant works. hinnk (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Childs (journalist)

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. The New York Times source, a book review, is the only secondary and independent source and it doesn't quite show notability for the book – and not at all for its author. bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Finance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book appears notable, and recent AfDs have indicated that it's best to keep a book with the author (if information is available for the author) rather than BLAR to a page for the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yihua Zheng

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

Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Garrett (musician)

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

Session drummer where sourced pointing to notability have not been available since 2010. Karst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Shiksha

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

The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Ialam (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sayful Ialam (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain that why it shows zero evidence of notability please. We also needs reasons for deletion discussion (although my feedback is mutual). Mehedi Abedin 16:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it not notable? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet

Aricca Vitanza

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as there are insufficient reliable sources to establish its significance. Additionally, the content appears promotional. I propose deletion based on WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline) and WP:NOTPROMOTION.

This person is not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. The historical background of this person is mostly heresay, there does not exist any sources to verify the claims. Whatever links there are are broken or dead.

This is a flagrant self-promotional page. It does not attain the standards wikipedia holds in order to merit an article. 47.153.182.90 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copypasted from this page's talk page. I am neutral at this time. To the nominator: Better to leave your deletion rationale on the article's talk page and to request completion of the nomination at WT:AFD where more people will see it. --Finngall ^talk 15:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Italy, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavişehir railway station

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

Tagged as uncited almost a year ago. I could not find enough good sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Manga (album)

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

As we now have Manga+ (also uncited) do we still need this? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why would you want to delete the full album of a well-known, chart topper band? If you have issues reagrding sources, put the respective template on the article. just because this isn't an American band, doesn't mean the album isn't notable. Go read about maNga. Xia ^{talk to me} 16:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources. It's a gold disc album that also won a top music award for the band. Xia ^{talk to me} 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great - in that case I hereby withdraw this nomination Chidgk1 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uncited template has been on article for years now Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Braudy (art dealer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are all connected to the subject or are not significant coverage – fails GNG. The previous AFD mentioned some offline sources, but they are not accessible for verification and the descriptions of these do not seem substantive (e.g. among brief quotes from art dealers, not biographical coverage). He is now appearing on a reality show but this would not be a basis for notability (though this could be redirected there should an article for the season be created). Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Verma

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

Fails WP:GNG. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. AmericanY (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable and prolific film critic, winner of a notable award, columnist with Rediff.com and The Hindu. Highly cited on Indian cinema-related articles on WP. Member of the top film critic circles in India, and an approved film critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FilmFreeway

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

I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Hardly meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Canada, and United States of America. AmericanY (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is presented on the page. So this meets the general requirements for notability. Also "Making Media:Foundations of Sound and Image Production" (2022), p. 300, for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:13, 7 October 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Lee Tu

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joan H. Lee

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Her master's thesis garnered a major burst of one-off media coverage, but that does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:BLP1E. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, plus many of the media articles are reproductions of her University press release. Later, when she has more she can include 1-2 of the links in a page with more notability information such as publications, awards etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 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 14:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing about this person since the 2011 paper. I don't see sustained coverage and does not meet academic notability. Carpet refbombing is a thing now, Sources 3-41 are to show it's received international coverage, which is a bit excessive. I think this was a attempt at promotion, that didn't really gain traction. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 7 October 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.

Skew It on the Bar-B

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

Nothing I can find about this song shows that it passes WP:NSONGS. No chart positions, no certifications, only one reliable source that gives it equal weight as part of a list of multiple songs, a WP:BEFORE search could only provide me with unreliable and self-published databases/fansites. No evidence of notability to pass WP:NSONGS -- redirect to Aquemini. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aquemini per nom. I managed to find some brief discussion about it in a Tidal interview with the track's producers, but it doesn't seem like enough to confer notability. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood (album)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No indication of notability. 2 references in the article. One is a database listing (MusicBrainz). The other seems to be a fan-written analysis. See page 76: [24]. Written by someone called "BloodBoal", with some text from website movingmagemusic.com and the album booklet (primary source). Mika1h (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Television, and United Kingdom. Mika1h (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Sabolová

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Luge because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this female athlete to meet WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Kusiima Mbabazi

AfDs for this article:

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

Again fails WP:GNG and all references fail verification. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House/Wife

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

Not meeting notability criteria WP:NFF. - The9Man ^Talk 09:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danis_Goulet#Career: with the sources (all or some) to indicate it was a project for Netflix, who was the writer and other details (presence of Alice Braga) (and plot line, if judged necessary). A redirect will allow to preserve history and is standard in such cases (sources+notable director+cast+etc) even if the project crashed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khomlang Laman

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found to meet WP:GNG, and there are no multiple nationally known critical reviews to meet WP:NFILM. The article cites unreliable sources, such as YouTube and BookMyShow. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Manipur. GrabUp - Talk 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abenao Elangbam#Selected filmography: lead actress. Another member of the cast has a page but plays a supporting role. Cinema of Manipur has lists of films and could be considered too but the actress seems a more appropriate target (the film is mentioned there and not in the general article). There is no List of Manipuri films for 2024. Can be redirected there later if the page is created. A redirect will allow to preserve history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources with no WP:SIGCOV, no reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. I did look into redirect to Abenao Elangbam#Filmpgraphy but this page too is poorly and unreliably sourced and would not be surprised if it makes to AFD nomination as well. RangersRus (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Amer

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Politics, and Canada. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable: local politicians don't qualify under WP:NPOL, and the sources cited don't come even close to satisfying WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Municipal officers: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable. But precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. As a member of the Toronto City Council, Amer would probably pass the notability criteria above. That being said, the sourcing does seem a little anemic, but AFD is not cleanup. A lot of the references seem like passing mentions or co-sponsorships/votes on pieces of legislation, not the kind of WP:INDEPTH coverage we would need to pass GNG. I feel like, with work, the article may be salvageable, but I am withholding a formal vote at this point. However, see my comments here as it relates to the subject's notability as a politician. Bkissin (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkissin Taking your notability point on board, this is likely to be the sole comment I make in addition to the nomination. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Council member of major cities are kept. Djflem (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per what policy? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I scoured the internet looking for sources to support notability, and found almost nothing regarding her political career or biography. What I found Amer is most noted for is her advocacy on behalf of Toronto Island residents. In fact, she appeared to be the longstanding "go to" person for media comments and insight about residents on the island. As such, she is quoted over and over again. Many of these sources have been included in her article. As well, in his book Witness to a City, former Toronto mayor David Miller devoted the entire first chapter to profiling Amer. Is Amer "worthy of notice", per WP:BIO, I'm leaning toward "yes". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use some improvement — but given that her time in office ended 30 years ago, that would entail digging into archives, not just casually grazing Google — but WP:NPOL most certainly does accept (and always has accepted) members of the municipal councils of major, internationally prominent global cities like Toronto. And since I have searched on her before, and just didn't start the article myself due to lack of personal knowledge since I didn't live in Toronto until after she'd been succeeded by Dan Leckie, trust me that the sourcing needed to improve this does exist in databases like ProQuest. (Yeah, and David Miller's book too, which will be added to the article as a source as soon as I'm done reading through what it says about her in the copy I've already pulled off my bookshelf.) Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Karachi Airport Bombing

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

Fails NEVENT. no WP:INDEPTH coverage. and IMO its, WP:TOOSOOON and WP:THEREISNORUSH — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Very rarely out of the many cases does terrorism in Pakistan get long term coverage so do what we have done with the rest and merge PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant terrorist attack effecting relations between China and Pakistan. And significant coverage is present. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiCleanerMan, Every terror attack is significant but you’ve got to show how this one stands out. There have been many of attacks in Pakistan targeting Chinese interests, and most of them don’t even have standalone articles. So why is this one different? Also prove how this attack has impacted the relationship between China and Pakistan. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I Believe the high quality sources cited, and the in-depth information featured in those articles absolutely meet the requirements for inclusion (hence the reason I went ahead and created this article). There is in-depth and significant coverage. Also: You can see just by searching "2024 Karachi Bombing" on Google. You can see that there are still significant sources covering and updating the event a day later (even ABC^[1] and CNN, and BBC, AP, etc) it would only make sense to create a Wikipedia article so that people have the facts from various sources in one place. The event is notable, it was a terrorist attack on an airport the same airport that suffered an attack 10 years prior.

You initially moved this article from the Main-space into a draft, because "more sources needed", as you said both on the revision, and on my Talk Page, and I believe the sources I linked more than suffice, (respectfully). Gonzafer001 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are attacks that have killed 10+ or 20+ people in Pakistan that did not receive lasting coverage - in fact, most of them. Pakistan has so much terrorism that any one attack receiving lasting coverage is incredibly slim, especially one this low profile. They all blow up in the news, are mentioned for two days, then never covered again. Event notability is maintained by LASTING coverage, not just coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY - I see where you are coming from, but this incident - involving an already designated and known Terrorist group Balochistan Liberation Army where they carried out an attack on Chinese investors and engineers is definitely something worth inclusion, Wikipedia is not about whether its editors support or not-support an article, it whether it's a good fit for the main-space. - Two people died in this attack which had targeted a "high-level target", even the The Chinese Embassy confirmed that the "high level convoy" included staff members from the Port Qasim Electric Power Company, a coal-powered plant developed through a joint venture between China and Pakistan.^[2]

The Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs even labeled this Bombing as a "Heinous Terrorist Attack"

- Heinous "hatefully or shockingly evil : abominable. heinously adverb. heinousness noun."

The Balochistan Liberation Army terror group has 3000 fighters, they themselves have a Wikipedia page.

Though two people were killed, and 10 were injured-- There is zero question that this incident is notable, it falls under the realm of WP:SIGCOV as I have attached reliable sources of which covered the story in-depth WP:DEPTH and from a neutral point-of-view--I even went ahead and attached News outlets from WP:DIVERSE regions such as Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Fox News, etc, all International sources outside the WP:GEOSCOPE. All of which are reliable enough to be included on Wikipedia themselves.-- Also for WP:SIGCOV: This article does not assume, it has only listed the facts that are known, including the fact that the separatist group claimed responsibility and that their target was a high value person. This event also shows proof of WP:PERSISTENCE, obviously news stories won't run forever but this specific event has been getting continuous coverage since the story broke-- News outlets are even doing more than one article on the event.

We have had 24 hours, the dust had settled already WP:DELAY is un-needed, hence the reason I had added WP:BREAKING to the header--We have enough info for a stub, and obviously enough news has come out in the past 24-hours to add even more information to the article.

But I do understand where you are coming from and I RESPECT it, but we should definitely keep this on the mainspace -- or at-least consider WP:RAPID Gonzafer001 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzafer001 Many of the previous attacks have gotten far more attention than this, also involving the same factors you mentioned, and almost all failed to sustain lasting coverage. Any breaking event is going to have sigcov when it happens. Attacks that have killed 20 people and have involved established terror groups often aren't notable because they don't get long term coverage! Pakistan specifically, their media rarely covers the specific individual incidents for long. In other countries it would make sense (though making breaking news articles it is a generally bad idea) but the pattern with Pakistan is overwhelmingly 99% of attacks there do not have lasting coverage due to the frequency, similarity, their security situation and their media ecosystem. They do not get the retrospective type articles that help notability in other cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2024 Jinnah International Airport bombing. Meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This is not a routine event, but an event that has effected China-Pakistan relations. So, prime minister of Pakistan is directly overseeing the investigation and this is not normal ([25]). 175.107.246.233 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if not kept: It seems reasonable under ATD to merge the content to related articles if this one is not kept. Jinnah International Airport has a section called "Accidents and incidents" which could cover this incident. The already mentioned Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 would also be reasonable. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Goku V, The title is also misleading; the attack occurred near the airport, not at the airport itself. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - REPLY - Direct quote from the article " a "tanker" had exploded on the airport motorway", the airport motorway is still Jinnah International Airport easement.
  Gonzafer001 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yes, but my understanding is that it was within the vicinity of the airport. To give an article example, we have 2024 Kansas City parade shooting, despite the fact that the shooting did not occur during the parade. Reliable sources connected the shooting to the just concluded parade. The same has happened here with sources: deadly Pakistan airport suicide blast, 'Terrorist attack' near Karachi airport, bombing that killed 2 Chinese near Karachi airport. All three articles have a focus on the airport despite the attack occurring outside of it. That is why I suggested Jinnah International Airport. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The article definitely meets WP:NEVENT. Mister Banker (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galma

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

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, does not demonstrate notability, and contains only minimal content (two or three lines). AstuteFlicker (talk) 12:19, 7 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.M.A.M. Institute of Technology

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

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. Delete or merge with NITTE as per the existing affiliation. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eobacteria

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

Never accepted, and the two taxa it would have contained are junior synonyms. Not even worth merging anywhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SHM-CD

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. References are primary or just mentions. - The9Man ^Talk 08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agreed, merge content to Compact Disc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

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

because it likely does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The bank's operations ceased in 1964 when it merged with the State Bank of Travancore, and there is limited independent, reliable source coverage detailing its historical significance beyond basic mentions. Without substantial secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the bank’s role or lasting impact Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather (surname in Kashmir)

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

We already have Rather as a disambiguation for people with this surname. The topic of the surname in Kashmir specifically is not notable. Fram (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Jammu and Kashmir. Fram (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think it's rather obvious that this fails WP:NOT. Geschichte (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rather, unless the content already exists there. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are already included there. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger of the prose/lead into Rather. This is due to the issues that the nominator also describes; the two sources are of very low quality. Also, "unless the content already exists there"? It's fairly easy to check whether it does... Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yosuke Nakagawa

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

Weak claim to notability with 14 games in Singapore and nothing else above amateur level, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Trenidad

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

This was created in a time when playing for any national team was considered notable. It's not anymore, and the amount of significant coverage I could find about this player was zero. Match reports from Bonaire do not contribute to notability, neither does "captaining a team in an Après-Ski Tournament". Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Báthory family (of the Aba clan)

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

The article seems to be based primarily on original research, and the sources are genealogical papers and personal documents obtained by the article author (e.g. this source) that ultimately don't prove the existence of an independent Báthory family. They instead attempt to link the well-known Báthory to the Aba clan. As a conseuqence, the article is in parts written like an essay and by and large lacks reliable and secondary sources for key points in proving the existence of this family. One of the more crucial sources mentioned in the article, a book by Tibor Báthory-Szőny, is an apparent attempt by the author (a designer, according to everybodywiki, but not mentioned anywhere else) to personally link his own family to the Aba clan, which does this article no favors, as it certainly doesn't constitute a reliable source.
In addition to that, the article has already been discussed and deleted on huwiki (where one sysop felt confident enough calling it a "hoax", later looking through a physical copy of a source cited by the author and finding nothing on the topic) as well as on several more wikis, where it was variously deleted as a duplicate or a machine translation. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an important addition for those who'd like to contribute to the AfD: the author has left some comments on the nomination on their own talk page instead of the article's. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article is not hoax, there really was a Báthory (or Bátori) de Gagy family (from clan Aba), but it was not related to the well-known Báthory family (from clan Gutkeled). See this source [26]. However, I am not sure that the conclusions of the article are correct. According to Pál Engel's genealogical work, Miklós Sirokai came from another branch of the Aba clan. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can't speak on the factual existence of the family itself, but the article seems like more of an essay aimed at proving genealogical ties with questionable sourcing instead of a fact-of-the-matter article that paraphrases reliable sources. I believe it would at the very least have to be rewritten from the ground up to reflect firmly established knowledge on the lineage, which makes it as good as deleted. Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 21:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa_1678.jpg Here is a photo of the genealogical table of the Báthory family, beginning with Count Péter of Aba and his son Miklós, the ancestor of the Báthory of Gágy line. This original artwork is dated 1678 and serves as a valuable historical document, illustrating the family's lineage and heritage. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa.jpg Attached is a large-scale picture of the genealogical table, which allows for magnification for better visibility. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. However, I would like to present further evidence and academic references that underscore the separate identities and historical significance of these two families.

Distinction Between the two Báthory Families

1. Báthory Family from the Gutkeled Clan:

- This lineage traces its origins to two Swabian brothers, Gut and Kelad, who migrated to Hungary from the Stof castle, which is associated with either Staufen im Breisgau or Hohenstaufen in Württemberg.

- The Gutkeled Báthory family is traditionally divided into three branches: Somlyó, Ecsed, and Szaniszlófi. Each of these branches contributed to the political and social landscape of Hungary over the centuries, with significant figures such as Báthory István (Stephen Báthory), who served as the Prince of Transylvania and was elected King of Poland.

2. Báthory of Gagy Family from the Aba Clan:

- The second major Báthory lineage is linked to the Aba clan, descending from King Samuel Aba. This family also produced notable figures, including Miklós Báthory of Gágy (known also as Miklós of Siroka or Miklós Gereven) who was a vojvode of Transylvania from 1342-1344. [a. Herzoge. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Reference Library (arcanum.com)] - The distinct genealogical [Archaeogenetic analysis revealed East Eurasian paternal origin to the Aba royal family of Hungary | bioRxiv] and historical narratives of the Aba Báthory family further illustrate their separate identity from the Gutkeled Báthory family.

Supporting Academic Sources

I would like to emphasize that the article under deletion also includes multiple academic sources and archive materials that provide evidence for the distinction between these families. Some of these sources include:

1. Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Volume 45, pages 115-120. This academic article explores the Hungarian noble lineages, including the Báthory family of Gágy, and their role in the political history of the region.

2. - [Báthori család. (Gágyi). | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] this is from this book: Magyarország családai czimerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal – Wikipédia (wikipedia.org) I would like to point out that one of the most authoritative sources on Hungarian noble families is Nagy Iván's "Magyarország családai címerekkel" ("The Families of Hungary with Coats of Arms"). This book is widely recognized as the most accurate and comprehensive reference for Hungarian genealogies. The depth of research and the historical accuracy in this work make it an essential source for understanding the distinctions between the noble families, including the Báthory families of different origins. I recommend consulting this work for reliable information on the history of Hungarian nobility.

3. -[Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor: Noblesse oblige, Báthory-Szőnyi Tibor | Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Központi Könyvtár (MNMKK) (hnm.hu) ]

[27]https://catalog.library.hnm.hu/en/record/-/record/MNMKVT351217 The book Noblesse Oblige, which is included in the collections of both the Hungarian National Museum and the British Library, provides detailed information on the Báthory of Gágy family. The author of the book is a direct descendant of the family, which adds a unique perspective and depth of knowledge to the historical account. This work is a valuable resource for understanding the lineage and distinct identity of the Báthory of Gágy, offering well-researched insights that support the differentiation between the Báthory families.

4. -[Sirokai család. (Sirokai †) | Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai | Reference Library (arcanum.com)][28]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Nagyivan-nagy-ivan-magyarorszag-csaladai-1/tizedik-kotet-9475/sirokai-csalad-sirokai-9C84/ The genealogical table clearly shows that Miklós Báthory of Gágy is a descendant of Count Péter of Aba, lord of Szalánc. This lineage highlights the direct connection between the Báthory of Gágy family and the Aba clan, further supporting the distinct identity of this family in Hungarian noble history.

5. -[GAGYI LÁSZLÓ SÍRKÖVE. | Turul 1883-1950 | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][29]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1887-33C5/1887-3-3795/magyar-sirkovek-385B/gagyi-laszlo-sirkove-385C/ This article states that László, who was killed by the Turks, had a brother named Miklós, who served as the Voivode of Transylvania. Miklós's tombstone is one of the oldest known, and it features the ancient coat of arms of the Aba clan, providing important evidence of the family's lineage and noble heritage.

6. -[Siebmacher's grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch 1856-1961 | Arcanum Újságok] [30]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-ungarn-magyarorszag-2/csaladok-29/bathori-ii-v-gagy-880/ This article presents the great seal of the Báthory of Gágy family and explicitly states that they are descendants of the Aba clan. The seal serves as further historical evidence supporting the family's origins and distinct lineage

7. -[Báthori II. v. Gágy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)] [31]https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Siebmacher-siebmacher-wappenbuch-1/der-adel-von-siebenburgen-erdely-AC44/edelleute-niederer-adel-BA76/bathory-i-v-gagy-BCFE/ The same as above, but the small seal.

8. -[Báthory I., v. Gagy. | Siebmacher: Wappenbuch | Kézikönyvtár (arcanum.com)][32]https://adt.arcanum.com/hu/collection/SiebmacherWappenbuch/ This is one of the most well-known books on European heraldry, providing a detailed description and illustrations of the symbols of the Báthory of Gágy family. The book offers important insight into their heraldic heritage, further emphasizing the family's distinct identity

It is essential to recognize that until the two families are adequately distinguished in separate articles, any encyclopedic information regarding their contributions and historical contexts risks being conflated, potentially leading to misinformation. This is particularly evident in related articles, such as the one on Aba (gens), which inaccurately attributes aspects of the Aba Báthory family to the Gutkeled Báthory family.

I respectfully urge the administrators and editors involved in the deletion decision to review the sources and context provided. A comprehensive understanding of Hungarian history, particularly regarding noble lineages, is vital for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the information presented on Wikipedia.

The attached sources are highly respected and academically credible, and they clearly support the distinctions outlined in this article. I encourage all editors to carefully review these references, as they provide well-researched evidence that is crucial for an accurate understanding of the Báthory families Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, none of the votes dispute the relevant book entries, eg Siebmacher Wappenbuch entries. Their votes seem solely rely on older version and hence are not properly motivated. Axisstroke (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your support and for recognizing the absurdity of others ignoring the academic sources provided! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems notable enough unfortunately the author seems to have particular partial views, hence taking back my vote to neutral on the article.--Axisstroke (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This decision appeared to stem from a lack of historical knowledge on the subject, which led to misunderstandings and personal biases impacting the discussion. It is very challenging to engage in productive dialogue with individuals who lack knowledge about the history involved. It is essential to approach historical topics with thorough research and an open mind to ensure accurate representation. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A perfect example of pure WP:OR. This would do better in a genealogical journal or forum, but WP is not the place for the author's original research and essay-like articles. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend, The deletion of this article risks leaving significant inaccuracies about the Báthory families in the encyclopedia. There are two distinct Báthory lineages that are often mistakenly treated as one. This misunderstanding persists among the readers, which makes it crucial for Wikipedia to provide clear, well-differentiated information.

The claim that this article is based on original research overlooks the fact that numerous credible academic and historical sources were used, including documents from respected archives and authoritative genealogical works! These references clearly indicate the separate identities and histories of the two Báthory families. The inclusion of sources like Nagy Iván's "Magyarország családai címerekkel" and studies from the Turul journal etc...provide well-documented evidence supporting the article's claims.

By dismissing the carefully referenced content as "original research," we ignore the substantial historical groundwork that differentiates these families. Removing the article goes against Wikipedia's mission to present reliable, well-researched knowledge, especially on complex historical topics. A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the necessary steps to improve the article and align it with Wikipedia's standards. Specifically, I have removed all original sources from the article, even though many of these documents were relevant and provided interesting historical insights. This was done to ensure that the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliance on secondary sources.

By focusing solely on academic and secondary references, I hope the article now meets the standards expected for inclusion. I believe that this revision strengthens the article's credibility while retaining essential information about the Báthory families. Have a nice day! A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Everyone knows in 2024 that we are an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a place to host your original research on genealogy. To claim ignorance is untenable. I’m not saying everyone knows about our arcane rules, but don’t play dumb here. We are not a place to prove or disprove anything - that’s the purpose of academic research! In addition, it is extensive and rambling, beyond the scope of its claims, and so poorly written that it would need to be started again to be considered an article. Bearian (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearian,

I understand the concerns expressed regarding the article, and I wish to address them comprehensively. First and foremost, I have taken significant steps to remove any original research, including personal documents, from the article. The current version is solely based on verified secondary and tertiary sources, many of which are academically recognized and cited in scholarly literature. These sources clearly establish the distinction between the two separate Báthory families, a topic that is frequently misunderstood, even in Hungary! It is indeed crucial that we maintain the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia, which is why I have made every effort to improve the article’s reliability and focus. The argument that the article "proves" something is perhaps based on an outdated version, which may have given that impression due to the inclusion of original documents. These have since been removed, and the emphasis now lies on presenting well-documented historical information from reliable sources. As for the accusation that the article is "extensive and rambling," it is important to note that the Báthory families’ history is indeed complex, and to fully address the two distinct lineages requires a degree of detail that helps avoid conflating them, which is already a widespread problem in many related sources. Simplifying this could easily lead to further misconceptions and inaccuracies. Finally, I would like to reiterate that Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedia that strives to provide accurate information about notable historical topics. The confusion between the Báthory families and the importance of their distinct identities certainly qualifies as such a topic. Deleting the article would contribute to a lack of understanding regarding these two lineages, and potentially perpetuate the misinformation that this article was attempting to clarify. My goal is not to "prove" anything through original research but to document verifiable history that has been overlooked or misunderstood.

Kind regards,

A. Kenessey Kenessey Aurél (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to Hijérovīt : I would like to mention that Tibor Báthory-Szőnyi has proven his direct descent from the Báthory of Gágy family to the Hungarian Government Office's Department of Internal Affairs and Civil Registration, which is why he was able to restore the Báthory name in a legal procedure in 2023. According to Hungarian laws, historical names can only be adopted if the applicant can authentically prove their descent through civil, church, and archival documents.^[3]^[4] The reason you couldn't find any sources about him online is that he was previously known as Tibor Szőnyi, among other roles, as the curator and director of the Budapest Opera Gallery ^[5]^[6]. I am a relative of him. Aurél Kennessey. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to Draft:Báthory family (of the Aba clan)~~. Although the subject of the article is notable, the content and style of the article do not meet the criteria. I think we should give the editor time to expand and modify the article, I see a willingness on his part to cooperate. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look the article now. I believe this is a complete and professionally crafted article. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to present this rebuttal to refute the claims made by editor Norden:

Norden: Why it is impossible that Nicholas Sirokai was the ancestor of the Gagyi family:

Nicholas Sirokai had several siblings: George, John, Ladislaus, Michael, and Peter, which is a different list than Gagy's owners. My response: Check the genealogical table of the Báthory of Gagy family; you’ll find those names match.[33] In 1323, By the order of King Charles, Gereven's sons (Lawrence, Nicholas and Michael, the same names as on the family tree) [34] and royal officials surveyed and separated the Gagy estates from the neighboring properties. Gereven was born around 1285, he would have been 38 years old, and his sons could have been around 20. The chronicle states Gereven died before 1358, meaning he lived to 70-73 years old, which is plausible.
Norden: Sirokai is first mentioned in 1330 when his father and siblings exchanged Szalánc for estates in Sáros County with William Drugeth. [27] p. 331. My response: This information is correct and further supports the story of the Báthory family, even on the 1678 family tree, which confirms this event.
Norden: Nicholas Sirokai was granted ius gladii (pallosjog) over the Jobbágy estate in 1344: see [28], Weisz B.: A királyketteje és az ispán harmada, p. 209. My response: Yes, this is true, and it reflects his high status, which is expected for a voyvode.
Norden: He was frequently called Sirokai or Jobbágyi, just like his son Peter. [29] p. 197. My response: Nicholas Gereven called sometimes Sirokai from the estate Siroka of his father. His father Peter of Szalánc also appears in some documents as Peter of Siroka. Voyvode Nicholas had a son Nicholas II, whose son was Peter, according to the family tree.[35] This fits perfectly within the 1365 timeline.
Norden: Nicholas Sirokai was still living in 1355 (DF 212 693) and died sometime before 1358: [30]. My response: He would have been around 65-73 years old when he died, which is within a reasonable age range.
Norden: Gereven, as an alternative name for Nicholas Sirokai, is a mere fabrication. Gereven is only mentioned once in 1285, and by the 1320s, his sons appear as "sons of Gereven," implying his death by then. If Gereven were identical to Nicholas Sirokai, the latter would have been around 100 years old when he died, which is improbable, given his active role in the royal court in the 1350s (see Engel's archontology 1996). My response: Without source this is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Nicholas Sirokai is included on the genealogical table of the Sirokai family stating that he is the founder of the Báthory line [36]

Final Explanation:

The evidence overwhelmingly supports that Nicholas Sirokai and the Gagyi lineage are interconnected.The concrete evidence attesting to this family is the family tree created in 1678, and lists the names from 1303 to 1678 along with the clearly legible inscription located in its lower section.[37] The genealogical details match across documents and timelines, and the suggestion that Gereven was a separate, unrelated figure is speculative at best. Without definitive proof to the contrary, the reasonable and logical conclusion is that Nicholas Sirokai also called Gereven (Greven or Comes) are part of the same extended family, fitting into the broader narrative of the Báthory of Gagy and the Szalánci family lineage.

If this were a legal matter, the court would favor the evidence-backed version of events over assumptions and hypothetical arguments. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet. A source analysis for the references raised would be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article itself is notable but the article, especially regarding the origin of the family, is full of factual errors and misinterpretations, as I presented in talk page. Despite I provided primary and secondary sources, The author of the article could not dispel my doubts. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must fundamentally disagree with you. Your version contains numerous inaccuracies, with László Gagyi's tombstone being a prime example. The original tombstone reads MCCCXXXII.^[1] The scholars you cited explain this by suggesting that the engraver likely forgot to carve the letter "L" or perhaps the letter "C"—claims that are, frankly, quite weak. The 1330 document, whose text and essence match word for word with the 1678 family tree, is also dismissed by you as a mistake, despite Gábor Bertóthy presumably knowing his family lineage going back centuries, just as other families from the same branch did. Even the names of the descendants are recorded on the family tree from 1303 to 1678,^[2] yet you claim he was mistaken. The genealogical table is deemed incorrect, despite being verified by Orbán Pál, the chief notary. You are constructing suppositions that do not align with the concrete facts. To me, this borders on trolling. If you don’t mind, let's leave it at that, as you suggested, and not continue arguing. I believe in the work of Iván Nagy, Joseph Csoma and Siebmacher and the authenticity of the original documents, while you prefer the works of Körmendi, Engel, and others.

These are my final arguments: I don't know how I can convince someone who doesn't want to accept the facts, but I will try once more. There are five prominent noble Hungarian families who have claimed for centuries that they descend from the Szalánc branch, and all of them have insisted in centuries, that the elder son of Peter, Lord of Szalánc, with name Miklós, who served as the Voyvode of Transylvania is the ancestor of the Gágyi and Báthory families. Every serious scholar, like Iván Nagy, was aware of this. Do you really think that all this five families were wrong? Only your theory is correct? This is quite unlikely. Look at the list and records of them:[16][17][18][19][20][21] Kenessey Aurél (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal vendetta on your part because my arguments are much stronger, and you couldn't tolerate that. I hope there will be an editor who thoroughly reviews my arguments. Kenessey Aurél (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read WP:PA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written anything offensive. We disagreed, and in response, you decided to delete the page instead of allowing others to weigh in. That is not fair! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

I kindly ask everyone to review the content of the article and the accompanying sources thoroughly. In my view, the contributors commenting on this matter are not well-prepared regarding the history of this noble family. There is only one editor who diverges from the opinions of well-known scholars such as Iván Nagy [38], József Csoma [39], and Siebmacher [40], offering speculative alternatives based on the work of contemporary researchers, which, in reality, have no verifiable foundation. Despite my reminder that the original family tree from 1678 is displayed in the Central Antiquarium in Budapest,[41] [42] with a detailed textual section in the lower part tracing the family’s origins, this fact seems to be disregarded. The family tree clearly states that Count Peter had six children, the eldest being Nicholas, who was also called Gereven, became the Voivode of Transylvania, and was the founder of the Báthory family. His other sons founded the Frichy (John) [43], Sirokai (George and Ladislaus)[44], Bertóthy (Michael)[45], and Hedry (Peter)[46] families. These families have, for centuries, documented their lineage accordingly, as recognized by historians such as Iván Nagy, József Csoma, Siebmacher, and others. Additionally, a book summarizing the material of the Diplomatic Archive also confirms this original family tree (page 331-332) [47] [48]. No greater evidence can be provided, and all other claims are mere assumptions. The removal of the page would once again result in the confusion between the two distinct Báthory families, one originating from the Gutkeled clan and the other from the Aba clan.

Thank you for your attention! Kenessey Aurél (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Myrgorodskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE advert. Gas man No indication of significance. Refs are press-release, profiles, passing mentions, interviews and x of y articles scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 23:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article served as a Member of Parliament in Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada), which qualifies them as notable under NPOL. However, the article also had some not sufficient stuff which has been removed. I suggest keeping it as some sources related to politics should exist (NEXIST). Taking off shortly (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Elected member of national legislature - satisfies WP:NPOL. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former People's Deputy of Ukraine. Ceriy (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there evidence for this npol assertion. I don't see mention of being a MP in the article. scope_creep^Talk 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is promo. scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Millanguir

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; Christianity Today has only a passing mention with highlighting the person's notability; Youtube is actually very bad source for citing. Nor more sources are provided. WP BEFORE was applied but I cannot add something reliable here. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." As a bishop in the Anglican Communion, Millanguir is covered by this longstanding precedent. (See also WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing multiple hits in Church Mission Society which appears Anglican but sufficiently independent of this gentleman. This is an Op Ed in Spanish from June, but I'm unclear what the relationship is with Diario Austral; my guess based on the website appearances is that this is another daily Chilean paper. Basically, he's a relatively new bishop, coverage is anticipated to increase, this is in a non-English language with a history of systemic under-coverage with attendant difficulty in finding coverage that exists, and there's no guarantee that if we delete this now someone will come back and create it once he is unquestionably notable per GNG. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but more references are needed. Deb (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP BISHOPS is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyashri Borse

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

Fails WP BIO; should be deleted due to insufficient reliable sources that establish her notability in the entertainment industry. The lack of significant coverage in independent media raises concerns about the article meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and relevance. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. She does not have any major role or contribution to the entertainment industry. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Charliehdb (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One film and a "special appearance" do not give us ACTOR. The second film might help, but sourcing is largely celebrity gossip articles. I don't find much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivada Inland Waterways

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

Should be deleted because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability. Furthermore, the content appears promotional in nature, primarily serving as a company advertisement rather than providing an informative overview of inland waterways. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Maina

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Only routine announcement are available. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obvious WP:GNG pass with WP:SIGCOV in the Nation (major Kenyan paper) and the Nelson Mail. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Furthermore, per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kenya and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned before - WP BISHOPS is only an essay and it is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. The whole point of it is to express the view of the community about bishops’ notability. Nor did you address the GNG-qualifying sources I identified above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BISHOPS makes this a rather pointless nomination. I suggest that you withdraw this AfD, Shinsi Bohansetr. Schwede 66 20:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Gujarat Vij

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

Fails WP ORG; lack of notability, as it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Additionally, the content appears promotional and does not provide unique historical or cultural significance that warrants a standalone entry. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ingen

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

Fails WP BIO; depth of the only primary source is not enough for proving the notability Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:BISHOPS states that bishops of major Christian denominations, such as the Anglican Communion, are considered inherently notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." As a bishop in the Anglican Communion, Ingen is covered by this longstanding precedent, and he is also an acting primate of an Anglican Province. (See also WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, "The bishops of major denominations, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned before - WP BISHOPS is only an essay and it is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. The whole point of it is to express the view of the community about bishops’ notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Öhman

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

Played once for IFK Gothenburg, then in semi-pro lower divisions. The problem when assessing whether he meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is that the coverage of him fails WP:ROUTINE, being transfer announcements. I might be swayed by two or three sources with some more substance. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably Delete I had a look on the Swedish wikipedia, but they seem pretty much like routine sources. I don't see enough either for GNG. Unless someone can prove me wrong it's a delete from me. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daichi Ishiyama

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

The claim to notability, playing 17 times in Singapore and then in Japanese amateur leagues, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG.
Simione001 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent

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

There is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).

As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK WP:SOFIXIT: I've updated the information about Newark Town Council (which was a red link until a few minutes ago) in Newark-on-Trent#Governance. PamD 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this article survives, either as an article or a redirect, it needs to be added to Sleaford_(disambiguation). PamD 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards have census data and may pass GEOLAND, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Ward articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 41#Wards. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titans/Young Justice: Graduation Day

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

Reverted redirect. There are scant sources found on Google News. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cavanagh

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

Fails WP:GNG, most sources do not cover Cavanagh in-depth, rather 1 or 2 brief mentions. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PimComedy Fashion Show

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

References are event listings and non-rs entries. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A before virtually nothing. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Poetry, Music, Entertainment, Events, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 7 October 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Young-chol

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

The claim to notability, playing 2 games in Korea and possibly some in Thailand, is very weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom and article is unsourced. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough reliable source coverage exists to merit an article. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 7 October 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.

NLC Dolly Gunj Solar Power Plant

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the page creator, I attempted to improve it by including a GlobalData report in the Further Reading section. However, if the majority of votes on this Afd support deletion, my only request is to merge this page with Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands#Infrastructure. Charlie (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Farmer

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

There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the sources currently in the article there is borderline notability. Online I have also found quite a bit that can also contribute towards WP:GNG ([49][50][51][52]). I will add what I can to the article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. Star Mississippi 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3 and 4 in the comment above are good, in addition to the 3rd source in the article. Should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Brad Farmer AM. I do not understand why or by who the wiki page relating to me is suggested to be deleted. How can I fix this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.11.26 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:27, 7 October 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.

List of most-followed Kick channels

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

WP:NLIST requires the subjects being listed to be discussed as a group in any significant depth by reliable sources. Although some sources have discussed Kick's channels collectively, those are all about the controversies and publicity stunts those creators have caused, not about their number of followers [53] [54] [55]. The abundance of coverage of WP:SENSATIONAL events that were designed by online celebrities for the exact purpose of gathering media attention is rarely a good argument for notability, and I doubt that this topic needs a stand-alone list considering that Kick (service) is already an article (which meets WP:NCORP mostly because of the coverage of said controversies to begin with). Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Internet, and Lists. Badbluebus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources here do focus on talking about the numbers of followers of specific big channels of this website (e.g. Amouranth, xQc and Adin Ross), but NLIST requires those creators to be discussed as a group, not individually. And needless to say, celebrity gossip websites and online databases are rarely reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the nominator's reasons, this list is unmaintanable. The data in the table comes from a dynamic database that claims to "collect[] and aggregate[] streaming data from Kick.com using statistics and charts" (whatever that means). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of most-followed Twitch channels & List of most-followed TikTok accounts, so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists, this list serves a valuable purpose by documenting significant trends in an evident and impactful space. Claims that the list is “unmaintainable” due to dynamic follower numbers are not strong enough for deletion. Other Wikipedia pages regularly update stats like revenue, sales figures, or most-followed accounts, and the content remains relevant despite being dynamic. As a growing platform, Kick has generated significant media attention, and reliable sources regularly cover its top streamers. Listing the top 30 most-followed channels does not represent an indiscriminate collection of information; it focuses on the most popular accounts on one of the newest major streaming platforms, essential for cultural and media studies. The argument that Kick's controversies are the only notability factor ignores the clear public interest in tracking which creators hold the most followers. I agree that it needs better citations, but that will be fixed with time. I know that editors, including myself, will maintain and update this list as needed. A note about the last update date should address concerns about outdated information. Deleting this list would limit Wikipedia’s ability to document the evolution of social media platforms, especially those rising in relevance like Kick.JeanSegura (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we do not make deletion decisions based on what other lists (or articles) exist or do not exist on Wikipedia. The reason for this is that we're looking at this list's notability, not the notability of those other lists; those lists might be notable, or they might not, but the focus of this discussion is just this list. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with you that each list’s notability should be considered individually. However, it's important to note that this list meets the same standards as similar lists, which is why it meets the inclusion criteria based on its own notability. You will find media online that covers kick followers, just as it does for other platforms. Reliable sources such as "NBC News" have show their follower counts and impact. I really think that the notability of this list is okay, as the list is not merely about individual creators but about Kick's social impact. JeanSegura (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs the Terrible Lizards

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

Non-notable film. Cited sources only talk about the extinction of dinosaurs without mentioning the film at all. Notability is clearly lacking and fails WP:NFILM. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films featuring dinosaurs. I find it mentioned here and there, but no significant coverage, and it was only 10 minutes long. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mark F. (2002). The Dinosaur Filmography. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 84–86. ISBN 978-0-7864-2453-5. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The book review the film on pages 84–86 and mentions the film on pages 9, 10, 11, and 357. The book notes: "Commentary: Dinosaurs ... The Terrible Lizards is an unexpectedly polished-looking film, especially in light of the limited resources from which Wah Chang created it. The animation is skilled and the puppets are excellent, without exception. Chang managed to save some time and effort by fashioning more than one head which could be fitted onto the same body, thus converting a Triceratops into a Styracosaurus, then into a Monoclonius, then into a Chasmosaurus, and so on. This tactic helped allow him to parade a small smorgasbord of saurians across the screen, with no fewer than 13 different prehistoric species glimpsed or featured during the film's ten-minute run time. Throughout the film, Chang adds little touches that are unusual for an "educational" film, and that reflect the care he always brought to his art."
2. Thrash, Sarah (June–July 1987). "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.)". School Library Journal. Vol. 33, no. 10. p. 64. EBSCOhost 5715370.
  The review notes: "Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards (rev.). 16mm or videocassette. color. 91⁄2 min. Aims. 1986. #9833. 16mm: $250; videocassette: $190 (Rental: $50). Preview avail. Gr 1–8—This lively, animated film shows the evolution of dinosaurs, iden tifies major types, and describes their physical characteristics. The terms are explained and defined to make them more understandable to younger students, and names are superimposed on the screen. In explaining the environment during the time of the dinosaurs, however, not enough information is included on the changes that took place on the earth, and only one theory about the ending of this period is provided. The organization of the material is clear. The only inconsistency is the inclusion of a fully evolved man and woman that are irrelevant to the time period of the film. An interesting film, useful for individual or group viewing."
3. Bykerk-Kauffman, Ann (May 1995). "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (revised)". Journal of Geological Education. 43: 272. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.3.266. ISSN 0022-1368. EBSCOhost 508557355.
  The abstract notes: "Dinosaurs, the Terrible Lizards (Revised) ($50), from AIMS Media, is a 10-minute videotape that features the locations of dinosaur finds on a world map; gives a very brief synopsis of the evolution of life on Earth; and focuses on showing, naming, and describing various types of dinosaur. This program is intended for children aged 7–13 years, is very appealing to children, but contains little scientific information."
4. Garrison, Jim (Winter 1971). "Dinosaurs ... the Terrible Lizards". Cinefantastique. Vol. 1, no. 2. p. 32. Retrieved 2024-10-08 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "Although Dinosaurs...the Terrible Lizards will probably be viewed by only a few fortunate students in the junior high level science classes in the Los Angeles City Schools, its realistic cinematic monsters are as lifelike as any used in a major studio production. Largely a natural history documentary, the film was produced in color by Wah Chang, of "Projects Unlimited" fame, and animated by Douglas Beswick for the Los Angeles Board of Education, and brings to life most of the dinosaurs of the past. There are approximately twelve to fifteen different types of these beasts in the film, including Brontosaurus, Ceolophysis, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Monoclonius, and the Tyranosaurus Rex. Narrated in laymen's terms, the film explains the general lifecycle of dinosaurs and why they became extinct. It also describes through diagrams how large some dinosaurs were: one diagram compares a Brontosaurus to an ordinary one-story house."
5. This Film & Video Review Index notes:
  DINOSAURS: THE TERRIBLE LIZARDS [MP]
  Encyclopedia Britannica 1977 24M $320P $25R Order #3504 Previews 7:3 Nov78 p14 Michele Smith
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dinosaurs: The Terrible Lizards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cunard's sources above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Health Research Office

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

Nominated for deletion as this article does not have the potential to pass WP:GNG (because it is an unfixable issue, draftify is not the correct action, AfD is better option). A search returns no secondary independent sources of the subject, as all sources are from the NIH who operates the research office. Wibbit23 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of institutes and centers of the National Institutes of Health. It's not surprising that an agency like has lots of primary sources. Secondary passing mentions in Google Scholar indicate that it is involved in a lot of work (tracking COVID, cancers, etc., on tribal lands) that might well be mentioned in other articles, unfortunately it doesn't add up to reach the current GNG level. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tcr25. Ridiculous nomination, considering that it was sent to AFD barely more than two hours after it was created based on an unspecified search. Boldly redirecting could have saved everyone some time here. Makes me wonder if I'm witnessing another example of "free beer or a fight", the belief that consensus on Wikipedia ≠ achieving middle ground. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkhus Rovner

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

Cannot find any books, journal articles, newspaper articles, or websites mentioning him. Only websites that did mention him are Wikipedia mirror cites. Hell, this is possibly a hoax. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Ukraine. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with points listed above. Multiple google searches (including with aliases) did not return any results. Sources in article do not support any of the article content (one does not exist, and one has very limited information). Wibbit23 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep absolutely, accusations of hoax are groundless. Pinkhus Rovner played a key role in the Bolshevik movement on territory of today's Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a common oversight of AfDeers is not bothering to check the native language sources or the article creators, who are alive and well, to accuse whom of hoax is a grave disrespect. --Altenmann >talk 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derrick LeBlanc (2nd nomination)

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

Nominated for deletion as my search did not yield significant coverage per WP:GNG. Most available sources come from team websites for from fan sites or blogs which WP:SPORTCRIT states is not valid. My search yielded two results that would be considered reliable secondary sources, but as WP:3REFS states in most cases, three references would be needed to establish notability. Reliable source analysis from my search:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2020/01/03/kentucky-football-dl-coach-derrick-leblanc-leaving-arkansas/2809501001/

This source is from 2020 and is focused on the University of Kentucky having to fill the role of defensive line coach due to Leblanc leaving.

https://sports.yahoo.com/cardinals-hiring-dolphins-assistant-dl-061650718.html

Brief history of LeBlanc's career after being hired by the Cardinals.

As mentioned, all other found sources are either fan sites or blog sites which are not usually considered reliable sources. Other sources also include Team sites, which are not considered independent. Wibbit23 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Louisiana. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick LeBlanc is an NFL coach, most of whom have Wikipedia profiles, especially the one's who have coached as many years as he has. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business and the most popular sports league in the world. Thanks! TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your points on the popularity of the NFL and coaches are valid, Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for inclusion into the namespace. One such criteria is WP:GNG which states that subjects of articles must have significant, non-trivial, independent, secondary coverage. As required by AfD, I preformed a google search on the subject, and returned sources that are not able to establish notability. Blogs, fan pages, and team/NFL pages are not able to establish notability. Wibbit23 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:3REFS is an essay, not a notability guideline, so in some cases 2 refs are enough. But this subject has more, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is an essay and that two can be suitable (hence "most cases"), however, I included 3REFS as the two sources I found were not enough to establish notability due to the first one focusing on the team he was leaving four years ago and how they would fill the vacant slot and the second being a very brief overview of his career. I am not able to open your proposed sources, if you could send them in alternate format that would be great. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may need access to newspapers.com, which can be done through the Wikipedia Library. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Monarch of the Glen

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

Non-notable list of characters that is completely unreferenced. WP:SIGCOV could not be found. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was previously at AfD under the title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Monarch of the Glen so ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monarch of the Glen (TV_series)#Cast - The list is completely unsourced and only contains overly detailed plot summaries. The main article for the series already lists the main characters and major reoccurring characters, so this can just redirect there. The characters not already present at the main article appear to be extremely minor. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kelley (bassist)

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

This person fails WP:BANDMEMBER, article should be redirected to The Roots. For a longer rationale, see the reply I gave to the article creator after my initial redirection. Mach61 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Mach61 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar AfD happened recently for another member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Gray. There, another editor, User:Tau Corvi made a keep argument, which also applies here. "Per WP:MUSIC a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles is notable. Gray is a member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, both have WP articles." Hexatekin (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument was for a redirect, but in the end, the article was kept. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry for that yes I see now your argument was for a redirect for the Kamal Gray article, but in the end it was kept. Hexatekin (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin "The Roots" and "The Tonight Show Band" are currently one-and-the-same, this argument is clearly against the spirit of WP:BAND#C6. Mach61 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I added another source and I will attempt to add more sources in the next few days, as I do believe he has been written about a bunch over the past 15ish years since joining The Roots. Hexatekin (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin

The sources you added consist of:

A non-independent interview with Premier Guitar
An OkayPlayer that, like the Inquierer article previously mentioned has little to say of Kelley himself
Another No Treble album announcement that has little to say about Kelley

Mach61 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this fails WP:NPERSON and is not saved by either WP:NCREATIVE or by WP:MUSIC's pertinent paragraph. The sources tracked or already presented are worthless. Wikipedia is not a musicians directory nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because there is coverage about him, but not opposed to Redirect if other users think it’s about him as band member mostly. What I am opposed to is Delete, totally. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Kahlenberg

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

BLP that reads like an organisation article. Lots of interview and profiles, passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I am the one who created the article. I have no financial relationship with the subject 66.112.246.20 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Atidna (following AfD discussion). The article does read a bit WP:PROMO on the organization and could be trimmed, and coverage on Kahlenberg is in the context of coverage about Atidna. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG nonetheless. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: How is the organisation notable. It was created in 2002 and there is virtually no coverage on it, outside a few interviews with Kahlenberg. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It was created in 2022 actually and has over 30 interviews from different sources including from Al Jazeera, CNN, NPR, ABC News, Axios, etc listed. Quick search shows there are even more not even mentioned on the page. This meets notable standards. I say keep and rename, although the article is lengthy. It is probably better to split into two articles, one about Kahlenberg and one about Atidna. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 2022. I would have to send the Atidna article to Afd. Its not notable as an organisation and would fail WP:NCORP. I see this is your first edit on Wikipedia. How did you managed to find this Afd I wonder. scope_creep^Talk 09:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. After washing away the promotional or vanity stuff (e.g. "He aspires to become a professor of international law and contribute to peace efforts in the Middle East and, eventually, he also hopes to enter politics"), the text stands quite comfortably alone on the strong support of multiple sources of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a random check of a dozen or so sources and they seem to be mostly interviews in some form or another. There might be a stronger case for an article on the organisation (Atidna), but I'm undecided at this stage.-KH-1 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might indeed be a stronger presence of the Atidna organization than of our subject in the media. I confess I did not dedicate much time to Atidna. What I found about our subject, before I posted up my recommendation to Keep, was enough: We have enough sources supporting independent notability for a stand-alone article. Examples: The portrait of the "young Jewish peace activist" in the Times of Israel; a Daily Texan report on Kahlenberg's activism and on his scholarship; interviews in two major news media, one in Arab-speaking Al Jazeera, evidence of the person's media reach, and another in the Greek-speaking New World (Neos Kosmos); and so on. We're safe. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Sleeping (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, which has proven entirely unverifiable, while this piece in Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive or GNG-building coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or inaccurate problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Robert Adetuyi#Career: where it is simply mentioned, and merge content about genre (+simplified plot), cast, date, etc; and sources. Not opposed to~~ Keep, given the existing coverage (and the film seems to have been released; review.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) and in light of the reviews identified by Donaldd23, at least. (The 3 reviews show the film was released in 2022 and is therefore considered a 2022 film). Thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the review listed above my Mushy Yank, there are these reviews [56] and [57] . And the question of it being released or not is answered by the fact it is streaming on Tubi [58] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Heyuguys" nor "This Is Film" are reliable sources of GNG-building film reviews at all — film reviews have to come from reputable and established publications to build a film's notability, not just any random WordPress blogger that you can find on the internet. And while AIPT is better, it isn't enough to vault a film over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy review that can be found. And I didn't question that the film has been released, but we've got three conflicting claims about when it was released with no fully satisfactory resolution to the matter of whether it belongs in Category:2015 films, Category:2018 films or Category:2022 films — of which it must be in one of those three, with absolutely no leeway for any "then just don't categorize it for year of release at all" opt-outs, so we can't just handwave that away as a non-issue. "Has been released" is not an instant notability freebie at WP:NFILM in and of itself — even a film that has been released still has to pass GNG on proper reliable source coverage about it, and can't park its notability on blogs or primary sources just because it's available for streaming somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation

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

General failure to demonstrate notability. Article purely sourced from its own website and then International (CWI) (WP:ABOUTSELF violation). Attempt to find reliable sources showed no notable coverage in terms of news coverage. Some results appear on Google Scholar but from those I was able to access in English there are few mentions and those appeared trivial and more to do with outside organisations such as SYRIZA.

Article has been appropriately maintenance tagged for several years now yet improvement has not appeared.

Given that the International they are now affiliated to is non-notable (International Standpoint) there looks to be no obvious redirect target, so proposing deletion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I'm wondering if someone cam look for Greek-language reliable sources? The organization has been around for 50 years and was once part of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) so there may be something out there. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Greek sources I have looked at, there is nothing worthwhile. Although the party is old, it has never been influential outside its own area, so there is not enough coverage. A mention by name here is enough, i think. So Delete. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – My community barbeque has been around for 75 years, and it was even sponsored by the city. However, there are no reliable sources covering it in-depth, so it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Yue🌙 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parking In Motion

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at AFD many years ago, and it was probably the right call then. This is something I see in ancient maintenance categories - the project was very exciting in 2011 but never went anywhere, the app disappeared, and there was never any subsequent source published anywhere. The sources cited were all from the initial rollout and seem to be blogs, for the most part, but notable blogs. Still, they were and kind of industry-oriented ones that one might suspect were often just passing on press releases.

This is all fine and well when a startup becomes Uber or Reddit or something, there will be no shortage of better sources, but what if nothing notable ever happens after the initial marketing blitz? The coverage was limited and is incomplete, we can't really say anything about what happened with Parking in Motion after the initial hype window. It didn't succeed, but how? Why? The article will probably never be able to say. There's nothing to add to it, no other Wikipedia articles probably need to link to it. It's just... there, incomplete, forever?

But upon reviewing the sources, I dunno that it rises to the level of non-trivial, definitely not-advertising-related sources mentioned in WP:WEB. The LA Times reference looks impressive in the citation, but I tracked it down and it just says "Parking in Motion helps you find and reserve parking spaces. It shows rates and provides directions. Free for iPhone." in a roundup of a few dozen road trip-related apps. I don't think that's non-trivial coverage. But I invite you to review this and the other sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: found sources [59] and [60], and the CNet one was also good. These sources establish sustained coverage over a year and just barely meets SIGCOV. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were in September/November 2011 and the initial articles were April/May 2011, and the LA Times ones mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post. They still read like press releases: "But now you can know exactly what the parking situation is like before you arrive: Parking in Motion". I know this is a weird AFD because there are respectable news websites with paragraphs about Parking in Motion, but reading what they wrote, it does not feel like non-trivial coverage. I did find a working link to the CNET article, it's the best coverage I've seen. At least it's not just rewording a press release. But it still limits the coverage to the rollout hype, which didn't go anywhere. Without better sources, the Wikipedia article is stuck in the hype phase forever. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least four different months, which seems just borderline enough to establish Sustained to me.
mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post
See WP:NewsBlog. The author's page says she is their reporter, and the references to blogging seems to be just the format.
The articles have clear bylines so I don't think they're press releases. Product news in general, especially for hyped products, nearly always reads promotional because the writers are hopeful to see where it goes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage, it's all essentially trivial in nature. Rollout hype with no lasting impact does not seem to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Defunct app that never really gained much critical attention beyond the initial buzz. No sustained coverage... Even when it launched, I still think it was a "weak keep" at best. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

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

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[61][62] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip: possibly with a very selective merge. This comes across as a SYNTH aggregation of several events during the war, some separated by half a year, grouped together solely by geography. "Battle at <x>" brings to mind a single, continuous military conflict at that spot, not a collection of skirmishes separated by months of nothing there. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok, so far we have a "we probably shouldn't have this" consensus - but does that mean we delete it or redirect it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Sen Ahir

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Mitra Sen Ahir. C F A 💬 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected the deletion on RfD since the article was based on a non-notable individual who attracted only passing mentions from few sources dating the past centuries. Indeed, this is not the only time when WP:NOTBURO has been ignored. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Haryana, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Part of a bundled nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so it can not be Soft Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keron Williams

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

I can't find any serious WP:SIGCOV on this person. Several Google searches brought back very, very few meaningful sources. This seems to fail WP:GNG as a result. The article also kind of comes across as self-made, possibly violating WP:COIN. Anwegmann (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Canada, Florida, Massachusetts, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as eight-year CFL player and four-time All-Star. This wasn't evident in the article at the time of this nomination but I have since reverted the page back to the last clean version before the COI-editing took over. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, to what notability criteria are you referring when you claim that being a four-time CFL all-star is notable? (Being an eight-year CFL player isn't notable at all; participation standards sports-wide were deprecated nearly three years ago now.) Ravenswing 21:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being an eight-year CFL player isn't notable at all – can you find a single eight-year CFL starter and four-time all-star without significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be near impossible for someone like this to not pass GNG and discussions like this are time wasters. Here are a few sources from Google. [63][64][65][66] I'm sure there are more out there too in newspaper archives. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say being a 4 time CFL all star probably meets WP:ANYBIO as a significant honor. Additional coverage found in the Montreal Gazette, SportsNet.ca (several more articles show up in searches, but unfortunately it looks like the pages have become corrupted as there is only a date and title with the article prose missing example here), The Globe and Mail, Houston Defender, The Province, and Vancouver Sun. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voltes V: Legacy – The Cinematic Experience

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

The film is basically a recap of Voltes V: Legacy. there is an upcoming re-release with new Japanese dubbing and new "never before seen scenes" but there is a lack of information for a separate article. Would be better to have this as a redirect to the source material. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Japan, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reviews here https://www.philstar.com/movies/2023/04/20/2260360/voltes-v-legacy-review-finally-filipino-movie-could-rival-marvel-dc and https://www.pep.ph/news/local/172863/voltes-v-legacy-the-cinematic-experience-review-a717-20230422?s=fjda47timjo28plrksh5mk98a9 at least; and the rest of the coverage shows this is notable enough for a standalone page (not to mention notable cast, crew). So very opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not really a point, I am far aware that the production involves actors in one of the two biggest television networks in the Philippines. The issue is if this movie is substantial enough from Voltes V: Legacy - the film is a recap of 15 of 90 episodes of the live action source material. The upcoming Japan release does promise to have "never before seen scenes" and new dubbing. At best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does The Cinematic Experience really need a standalone article when it could be just a footnote at Voltes V: Legacy? And since its a recap film, its production/conceptualization background is literally the same as the TV show.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is about this film not the series. A standalone page is acceptable for subjects considered notable. This one can be presumed notable according to the general guidelines, so that there is no reason to redirect and merge it, that's all. Consider it a detailed article, Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews identified by Mushy Yank. If it's been reviewed in reliable sources then it is independently notable from the series. There are similar types of film such as Battlestar Galactica, and Duel (Steven Spielberg) which were originally shown on US TV but received international cinema distribution, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driggu Florentino

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, or WP:ACTOR. All the references are either the subjects own website, or self-published sources that are promotional in nature. Also appears to have been deleted in the past with the discussion here. The page creator deleted the PROD tag so I am bringing it to AfD. cyberdog958^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Brazil. cyberdog958^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly believe that the deletion of the biography is unnecessary, given that the article was created based on solid and reliable references.

The subject of the biography has sufficient relevance to be included in the encyclopedia, especially within the context of the underground synthpop movement in the Northeast, which reinforces the importance of its preservation.

The biography is well-founded, containing sources that support the facts and a structure that provides appropriate backing.

Deleting the article would result in the loss of valuable information about the subject and, consequently, about an important musical movement within the Brazilian underground scene. The article still has significant potential for expansion, deepening the understanding of the cultural and historical impact of the underground synthpop movement and the unique contribution of the subject.

Keeping this article is a way to preserve and disseminate knowledge about an important part of Brazilian music and culture from the north, which deserves recognition and documentation.

Therefore, removing the article would be a setback in documenting this movement, as the encyclopedia plays a crucial role in recording and preserving cultural diversity.

The biography not only contributes to understanding the underground movement but also highlights the subject's relevance within this musical scene. The Artist was recognized by the Museu da Pessoa as one of the most important people, both in activism and art, please do not remove this biography. https://museudapessoa.org/pessoa/rodrigo-barbosa-da-silva/ https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Driggu_Florentino Moniiquedecastro (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little to no third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The artist is part of the cataloging of a Prestigious Museum, the 'Museu da Pessoa'.

https://viaf.org/viaf/6559165814922859860006/

https://acervo.museudapessoa.org/pt/conteudo/pessoa/driggu-208910

Hi, could you please take a look at these references I found? I believe they demonstrate how important the article is for cataloging visual artists. The information that was removed was correct and well-founded, so it would be great if you could reconsider that. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching, I found a reliable reference in La Vanguardian.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/peliculas-series/personas/driggu-2884960

I believe that is enough. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disruptive, out-of-process draftification reverted, and AfD relisted. Any admin may close this at any time. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was subject to G11 and now that it has been cleaned up there's nothing left.—Alalch E. 22:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. WP:TOO SOON and lacks reliable sourcing. I am not finding any good sources or evidence of notability. (same reasons as 2022). --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
http://pb.mapas.cultura.gov.br/agente/222119

https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:G%C3%AAneros_Diversos,_Hist%C3%B3ria_no_Museu_da_Pessoa_(208912).pdf

https://arttere.org/artistas/3946/driggu-florentino

The Visual Artist is widely recognized in his field, and his reputation has been built organically, without the need for paid promotional campaigns.

Like other great names in visual arts, he chooses not to appear in the headlines of major portals.

This decision reflects his commitment to authenticity and artistic integrity, refusing to submit his work to the commercial logic of self-promotion agencies.

His work is so valuable that it deserves a place in prestigious encyclopedias and catalogs on its own merit.

The references that accompany his career are more than enough to ensure the preservation and recognition of his legacy, demonstrating that his art transcends marketing and speaks directly to the public.

It is of utmost importance that Wikipedia accepts this article, as the work of this Visual Artist extends far beyond what we see on major platforms. He has chosen not to pay for promotion, and yet, his work is extremely relevant and deserves to be documented.

Wikipedia plays a fundamental role in helping to preserve the legacy of artists like him, who are focused on the art itself rather than marketing.

Therefore, accepting this article ensures that future generations can recognize and appreciate the incredible contribution he has made to the artistic world. Moniiquedecastro (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protector (DC Comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG the page itsself notes that he's a very minor character with a little over three appearances. Also appears to be some prose issues Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Extremely minor character with no more than a handful of actual appearances. The only non-primary source included in the article is a defunct fan-site. Searching for sources mostly turns up entries in fan-wikis, including some that are just mirrors of this article. The only bit of coverage that could be considered significant is this piece from ScreenRant, which even if one were to discount the concerns at WP:VALNET of using the site as the sole means of establishing notability, would not be enough on its own to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of DC Comics characters: P. BD2412 T 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The probelm is there is very little to merge Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reception/analysus, pure WP:FANCRUFT plot summary + catalogue list of appearances. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per the former. Noorullah (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect fails WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/massive-blast-karachi-airport-pakistan-injures-4-114545962

[2] ttps://www.newsweek.com/chinese-targeted-karachi-airport-bombing-1964742

[3] ttps://www.teol.hu/helyi-kozelet/2018/12/vedettseget-elvezo-nevet-nem-vehet-fel-ma-barki-szabadon

[4] ttps://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1000001.tv

[5] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/local/threecounties/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8376000/8376561.stm

[6] ttp://www.elisa-schaar-art.com/es/files/Katalog_Opera_Gallery_Elisa_Schaar.pdf

[7] ttps://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/Turul-turul-1883-1950-1/1887-33C5/1887-3-3795/magyar-sirkovek-385B/gagyi-laszlo-sirkove-385C/

[8] ttps://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Szal%C3%A1nczy_csal%C3%A1dfa_1678.jpg

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]