Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      December 21 (Sat)      December 20 (Fri)      December 19 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Guite people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a clan of certain Kuki-Chin language speaking tribes. It is a well-known clan, but not notable in any other way. We don't have any other pages devoted to such clans. The topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Asia, Myanmar, Manipur, and Mizoram. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it just needs a rename or move. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems to have several references, but mostly offline, so it's not super clear if they are tangential or not. I could not find much online, but a subject expert may have more success establishing notability. I think the best route is to give this article some time to see if notability can be more clearly established. The information in this article may also be able to find a home at Paite people. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of the Castro and Youngblood children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Virginia. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely got any coverage at the time, based on the paltry sourcing. Tried and went to prison, there isn't much more to be said. I don't see criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see what happens after the new year. These stories sometimes come up again at the end of the year. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is not analytical in any respect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails to meet notability requirements. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beehunter, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is plainly a rail point, formerly a crossover/junction and more recently a rather odd pair of junctions. The only road in the area actually swerves to avoid the spot, and the only building is in the middle of the junction; I would gather it was once the "tower" but it's impossible to tell. I did find some explicit reference to it as a rail station/junction but other references are to the marsh or to a potential archaeological site, or to local mining activity, npne of which are not in this immediate vicinity. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Suprisingly detailed article from 1970 talks about the history of this rail spot: [1], but states clearly that it "was never a city, nor a town, nor was it ever the home of more than one family." I will update the article accordingly. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you find a free pdf or transcript of this paper, since sources are always better when they're accessible. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Try this: [2]. It continues on a second page, but this proves my point. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One article isn't sufficient to elevate a rail point to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I’m not sure I agree with nominator’s reasoning, as it seems to be skirting the edges of WP:OR territory. That said, I am also struggling to see how a single article from 1970 qualifies the junction for notability, particularly after glancing at the criteria set-forth by WP:NTRAINSTATION. MWFwiki (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Comment- I Found This Article, That Says:

"The community of Beehunter was located two miles south of Bushrod in Washington Township.  Beehunter took its name from a local stream, Beehunter Creek.  Bees came to feed on the marsh flowers, which were abundant in the section of the county.  Businessmen came from great distances to reap the honey and the more valuable honeycomb.  The village consisted of a railroad depot, a store, a restaurant, a hotel, and a grain elevator." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It's a location that wasn't exactly a town...above info seems to indicate it meets the minimums. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re.press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Poetry, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not difficult to find published reviews of their books. There's also some coverage of them (via an interview with their founder, but independently published) at [3]. Whether that and the existing bloggy sources amounts to GNG notability is another question. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not seeing enough for GNG Andre🚐 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyoncé pop culture references (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Taking this to AFD since a PROD was contested. The page appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE when bloated with lots of trivia and minor mentions of Beyoncé. We're not supposed to be a repository of whenever someone simply alludes to a celebrity or explicitly brings up their name, so I recommend deletion. That simply is a collection of fancruft. It also doesn't help that the list is full of inappropriate POV and tone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unnecessary collection of trivia. Not everything should be listed in this encyclopedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Its notable entries, if any, could be merged to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thoroughly enjoyed researching to make this page (and I have to give thanks to the countless others who contributed and made tweaks), but the opposition (instead of constructive advice or actual editing) at every turn got annoying and you guys simply cannot make up your minds. This page actually began as part of the page Cultural impact of Beyoncé, but was recommended to be spun off in another discussion. Here we are again. I know I will see a similar "repository" in a few months' time for some other artist with none of the opposition, and the same users commenting here will be willing to work or provide advice to improve POV and tone there instead of merely complaining about it. C'est la vie. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I appreciate the effort of page's creator to collect info and sort it. However, I also agree this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category would be useful. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Television, Advertising, Popular culture, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Strong oppose to outright deletion, per WP:ATD-R. There is no need to nuke this, some content might be useful for the target. Ping Apoxyomenus - you may want to reconsider delete vs redirect here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trainsskyscrapers @Bluesatellite I actually meant to ping only Train... but why not, everyone, this does not need to be TNTed out of history. Redirecting is exactly what is needed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing any point in that when few if any of the listings are even worth mentioning there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The list was created by User:Trainsskyscrapers who voted to delete above, and was responding in apparent good faith to a suggestion at Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Unfortunately that suggestion was not a good one, due to WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:FANCRUFT. The existing cultural impact article can indeed be improved, but with less non-notable trivia. Meanwhile, the redirect suggestion is okay but we don't really need the namespace title that is unlikely to be a search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons outlined above (mainly that it is trivial). As noted above by Doomsdayer520, a redirect is unnecessary as the search topic is unlikely to be used (plus the page history doesn't particularly need to be kept since the list entries are too trivial to be worth mentioning in related articles). RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A redirect or merge could be helpful but I cannot find a proper alternative. Orientls (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheoTown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page was deleted multiple times for A7 and G11 reasons, so I figure having a full deletion discussion might be worth it. The only sources given are primary: the game's website, and the Steam/App Store/Google Play pages and ratings. The only sources I could find were a self-published blog explicitly including affiliate links, and this review, whose website appears to have an editorial team but for which I'm not sure how reliable it is, as only one of the members is an accredited journalist. Still, assuming this counts as a RS, a single source isn't enough for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with what's explained above, there isn't much in the way of product reviews for this app. I don't find much else either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom

  Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This is much more borderline - a search on my end found two RS reviews: one from TouchArcade [4] another from 148Apps [5] and a non-RS listicle from GamingEsports [6] and brief mention in Wireframe [7]. I would consider this to be notable if one more RS or solid review could be located. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot! Just curious, where did you do your WP:BEFORE? I only did a cursory search (first pages of Google and Google News), but I'm curious if there are better places to look for video game-related sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mix of Google search, Internet Archive, and WP:VG/SE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That last link is great to have, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little information I have found that can demonstrate notability.--Bexaendos (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the article will be deleted since there will be no information about the game, I propose to publish more information. 2800:810:544:AF:8DC6:DFBF:DB1A:7522 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean? You can ask sources to publish more information, although it might take longer than the time this AfD runs, but we can't add more information that sources haven't published. Although the sources provided above can definitely be added in the article, and are a good first step. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will suggest moving it to the draft space, allowing the JJP to improve its sourcing and content as article seems not to be ready for mainspace. Nxcrypto Message 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a decent sized game with a decent audience. I play the game a lot and the discord server had over 10,000 members. BooCooE ^(talk) 17:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT λ NegativeMP1 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - There's a print review from Gameplay magazine: [8], when combined with TouchArcade's review: [9], that's 2 reliable reviews. And there's reviews from 148Apps and Softonic: [10]], [11], according to WP:VG/S, there are inconclusive discussions of their reliability, so until they are determined to be unreliable, I'm leaning keep on this one. --Mika1h (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding these sources! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is great work finding more sources! Caution that the Softonic review is nonattributed and its evaluative aspects are a pretty meaningless single word salad paragraph: "rich and engaging gameplay experience...challenging and rewarding experience...engaging and immersive." Comes off a bit WP:PROMO or gAI. If the Gameplay review is WP:SIGCOV this probably does enter the territory of keep, but it's WP:OFFLINE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not speaking positively or negatively on the source's quality or usability, but I feel that a site using affiliate links is noncontroversial, especially since they advertise very clearly that they do. Sites such as Polygon also use affiliate links. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability and reception is low and the inspiration from SimCity 2000, see fan wiki, that I am not sympathetic to keep. Dewiki has some sources that I could see a mention related to city building games. IgelRM (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I removed the PROD tag from this article since it was already PRODed once. Page was also speedy deleted under WP:G11 twice before, and subject appears to be non-notable.

The editor who added the PROD tag provided the following rationale:

Clearly fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Quick run-down of the five existing refs: Ref 1 is openly sponsored content, ref 2 is a Q&A/interview with the subject, ref 3 is a post by the subject, ref 4 is is a Q&A/interview with the subject (accompanied by a short bio/introduction), and ref 5 is a press release, presumably by the subject or one of their companies (although it's not transparently indicated that it's a PR on the website, the text, which can be found on a few other "news" websites, follows a PR template for this kind of "news", see, e.g., basically the same release for another person and another one). All other sources I see are also either primary (interviews etc.) or non-independent. The subject seems to have received some awards/honors but none of them are notable afaics (like the kind of award/honor mentioned in ref 2) (proposed by Felida97).

CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: Thank you for fixing my mistake! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted elsewhere, unreliable press releases and infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India just verifies existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's about a businessman who both exists and does his job, with no indication of this meeting notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's also an existing draft for this subject, Draft:Sanjay Sehgal, which has been declined a few times by now. While there's more text (the text/sentences currently in the article is/are a subset of the text/sentences in the draft) and a few other refs in the draft, it doesn't contain anything that changes my assessment. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Brahmanbaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is mess, WP:NOTPROMO. It fails both WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE resulted in only few press release, appointment announcement, and navigational maps. The sources mentioned within the article do not pass WP:RS, 1 being press release statement, source 2 leads to a blank website (at least for me), source 3 is an announcement and source 4 is University's official website. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have removed unsourced sourced content and added more references.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Daily Star 1 – Trivial / WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:SIGCOV
  • Dhaka Tribune – Trivial / Focuses on an incident happened at Brahmanbaria district, fails SigCov
  • Daily Star 2 – Same as Dhaka Tribune, fails WP:SIGCOV
  • Business Post – Trivial / Focuses on broader issues affecting private universities in the country, likely mentioning the subject as one example, fails SigCov
  • Daily Star 3 – This is one good source to count, discusses a local environmental issues with the subject in non-trivial mention, passes SigCov
  • NewAge BD – Trivial / Announcement / WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov
  • Daily Sun – Trivial / Announcement / Press-release WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov

  With the newly added sources, none appear to meet the GNG nor WP:NSCHOOL to keep this article. Most of the sources seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE or

  WP:ORGTRIV with only one providing WP:SIGCOV but fails WP:ORGDEPTH for this subject to be a stand-alone article. Also, the subject is a for-profit private institution, WP:NORG must be met. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the above analysis of the new sources and MimsMENTOR is also correct that as a new startup private and for-profit university, this certainly needs to meet WP:NORG. We are looking for multiple independent reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Even the dailystar article therefore falls short of WP:SIRS] being a news report about the courts finding the plan to lease lands in favour of the university to be illegal. This is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. We are clearly WP:TOOSOON for this new venture and the page is essentially promotional. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not !voting keep unless the sources found are added to the article and the incomprehensible lead is re-written. Ping me when you get this done. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft until improved; there's no reason to get rid of information that might later become more useful & notable. Allow some time for improvements. Buffs (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: This university was founded in 2019, and it's now almost 2025 with no signs of notability. There's no justification to keep it under Allow some time for improvements. It can always be recreated if it gains notability in the future, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I would want it moved to draft space. That would allow what is present to be retained and improved upon as sources become available (should it ever be attained. If necessary, please place it in my draft space). Buffs (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify as per Buffs. Mehedi Abedin 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Suat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable watercourse in Thailand. It has no sources for 8 years. I could not find anything about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything about the subject with a search other than this article. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Thailand. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not found in the Royal Society's Gazetteer,[12] which is expected to include most geographical features. The river does exist, though, and gives its name to the forest along its basin as ป่าน้ำสวด "Nam Suat Forest" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), which is part of Tham Sakoen National Park and Mae Yom National Park. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this announcement [13] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search for "น้ำสวด" "แม่น้ำยม", the Thai forms of "Nam Suat" "Yom River", shows plenty of sources. It is a sizeable stream, flows through an important teak forest, floods badly, is threatened by a dam and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For results that are actually about the river, I'm only seeing data points form hydrological databases, and a single Facebook post. Nothing that could be considered in-depth. Everything else is about the forest named after the river, but not the river itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aymatth2; a river of this size is going to pass WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Yom River, and remove the circular link, which was probably why the article was created in the first place. There are simply no sources to base an article on. If there are only mentions of the name in regard to the forest, that might be the better topic to cover, but there's already a more suitable place for that, in the national park articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We are handicapped by not understanding the Thai language. The search for "น้ำสวด" "แม่น้ำยม" gives sources that use those exact forms of the river and parent names. It may well miss other sources that discuss the river in more depth. Some sources mention a proposed dam and a later proposal for two smaller dams, both presumably affecting the river. The teak forest covers the river's watershed, and is special. The fact that there is a hydrological station on the river indicates some importance. The flow of 5.28 cubic metres per second (186 cu ft/s) at Ban Wang Yao is rather more than that of the River Lea at Feildes Weir, Hoddesdon. It is reasonable to assume that other sources must exist for a river of this size. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a native Thai speaker, as indicated on my user page. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage about the river at all. The reports about the dam that I'm seeing only say that its location will be in "Pa Nam Yao and Pa Nam Suat Reserved Forest", while the watercourse being dammed is Nam Ki, a different stream/river. That sources should exist might be a reasonable assumption, but if actual efforts to identify them aren't turning up anything usable, then the assumption is proven invalid. If you're seeing results that you think should be usable, Why don't you share specific links so that I can help take a look? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Searching is quite difficult because the results are heavily polluted by the word สวด in the meaning of chant/prayer. However, it does appear that the river is also commonly refferred to as "ลำน้ำสวด" and "ลำน้ำห้วยสวด", which reveal hits such as a brief mention, among other rivers, of flooding in this 2014 news report[14], and mentions here and there among local government websites saying that the river flows through their village[15]. There is one result that's likely in-depth, a research paper presented at Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University's annual conference in 2018 titled ปัญหาการพังทลายของตลิ่งลำน้ำสวดและแนวทางการป้องกันอย่างยั่งยืน (The problem of bank erosion of Lam Nam Suat and methods for sustainable prevention)[16]. It's very likely to contain a description of the river, but the full text is not available online anywhere (the conference proceedings were hosted on Google Drive, and are all down). That's one potential source that might contribute to notability, but without anything that could be used to write something more than a completely uninformative substub (Where is the river? What is its course? What is its significance?), redirecting (without prejudice) would still seem to be best option for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Possibly [17] could be used to locate the river (coordinate PA 527815, wherever that is). If we could see it on a map that might suggest search terms. And [18] may give enough information to justify a stand-alone article, if we could see it. Geographical items do not need to meet the same rigorous criteria as people, and it seems that a river this size should be notable. But if we cannot find proof, a redirect is second best. I would prefer to redirect to a section in the parent, e,g, #redirect Yom River#Nam Suat, and give all available information in that section. I can take a shot at that based on the sources found so far. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's partially mapped on Openstreetmap as ลำน้ำสวด, but as a user-generated primary source we can't use it for much. It does show that it flows into the Nam Pi น้ำปี้, which agrees with the hydrographical diagram at [19]. I couldn't find anything relevant searching the two together, but while Nam Pi is also an unreferenced stub, it does have an entry in the Royal Society Gazetteer (which doesn't mention the Nam Suat though).[20] Maybe that should be the redirect target, as the next-order tributary. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An article for Nam Pi + Nam Suat would be very short. I would be inclined to make sections in the Yom River article for each direct or indirect tributary, with perhaps one paragraph each - whatever shows up on a search. Of course, some of the tributaries might warrant stand alone articles, with a summary and {{main}} link in Yom River. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree with that. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the major river or national park. It's actually sourced but the article is a TNT worthy mess. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([21]) and New Arab ([22]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.

      
      

      Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.

  Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Worm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating the articles on Doctor Worm and the following They Might Be Giants songs for deletion. Almost all of these articles were created between 2003 and 2006 (an era that surely had a large overlap of Wikipedians and TMBG fans) and do not hold up to contemporary notability standards.

• Ana Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Can't Keep Johnny Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Experimental Film (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I Palindrome I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James K. Polk (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Man, It's So Loud in Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Particle Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Purple Toupee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• S-E-X-X-Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (She Was A) Hotel Detective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Snail Shell (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Statue Got Me High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• They'll Need a Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Guitar (The Lion Sleeps Tonight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks like these articles all fail WP:NSONG. They Might Be Giants might be giants, but that doesn't make these songs notable. The only sources cited in these articles are either primary sources or album reviews, and the content can be merged into the respective albums.
Though the article Boss of Me is also in a poor state, I do not think it should be deleted, as I can find some sources that exist. e.g., Panama City News Herald, 2001 I cannot find non-trivial coverage of the songs I have listed, even ones as popular as "Ana Ng", but would be happy to be proven wrong. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't Keep Johnny Down and James K. Polk (song) which meet GNG, IMHO. Ana Ng I would think is on the cusp. Redirect the rest. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin, this is not correctly formatted as a bundled nomination so any closure will only affect the article in this AFD's page title. You can't just make a list of articles like you've done here. If you would like to nominate these other articles for deletion consideration, please review WP:AFD and follow the instructions for nominating multiple articles exactly. Also be sure to notify all of the page creators about this AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not getting around to this until now. I have reformatted this AFD, and I hope I have done it correctly this time. I have also notified the creators of each page. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect "Doctor Worm" to Severe Tire Damage (album). This song article only gives us some very minor fan trivia with no evidence that it is notable enough for its own article, and I can find nothing beyond that same trivia. Meanwhile, in agreement with the comment above, there should be no discussion of the other songs piled into this list, without precise nominations for each. Some of the others are notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I’m sending these two articles to AfD upon the suggestion of another user who requested assistance in doing so. For the moment, I have no particular opinion on the matter, though I may vote as the discussion progresses. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. Article on a minor local official, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Created by a relative as part of a family history project and including much WP:OR. See for example (at the foot of the article): Demeter von Tuschinski's great-grandson Alexander Tuschinski (*1988 in Stuttgart) is a film director and historian. As of 2024, he is researching Demeter von Tuschinski's life and plans to publish a scholarly biography of him. In November 2023, he gave his first public lecture on his research at Bukowina-Institut an der Universität Augsburg, in which he presented the first comprehensive biographical overview of his great-grandfather to date.[citation needed]. Axad12 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author, I object the deletion, as I am certain notability is firmly established in both cases:

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian civil servant (edited: English terminology corrected), in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles that exist. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges] - which cannot be the goal of Wikipedia.

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, for example, in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. If none of that is "notable" it would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - and I am convinced of their notability, particularly given the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania. I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works.

I am Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's great-grandson, which I always openly stated when creating the articles. Both Demeter and Constantin passed away before I was born. I created and researched both articles over several months, and I am currently getting my PhD in history at University Innsbruck about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski's biography. I wrote the articles in a neutral and academic way, careful to not write a subjective view, but only to quote from sources, much like I write my PhD dissertation. I intend to expand both in the future. Except for Axad12 (who recently added a COI tag and told me he would nominate my account to be blocked if I ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again), I heard no objections to the articles, and the objections he voiced on his talk page refer to me being related, not on the content of the article. I believe articles shall be judged independently of who the author is. Every part in the articles is supported by a footnote - the one part Axad12 quotes with [citation needed] originally had a reference to an academic presentation I had held, that another editor removed, and which I plan to replace with a link to a current press article after the deletion discussion. ATuschinski (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the editor above. I did not tell him that I would nominate [his] account to be blocked if [he] ever wrote about a relative on Wikipedia again. What I have said to him, several times now, is that editors with a COI should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the relevant articles directly, and that if he continues to edit such articles directly (including articles about himself and his film projects) after being advised not to do so on multiple occasions then I shall report the matter to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, in which case it would be reasonable to assume that his account may be blocked.

However, I do thank the editor above for confirming that much of the work on both of his two family history articles are based on his own original research (i.e. WP:OR).

I would also note that notability, from Wikipedia's standpoint, is based on specific criteria and not on a family member's subjective opinion on whether his family members were 'notable'. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, perhaps it's a misunderstanding, since I am confident you use the WP:OR argument incorrectly here: The extend of my original research can be seen in the footnotes of the articles - mostly links to digitized newspapers, and many weeks of browsing through them online, in addition to newspapers and books available at libraries. I link to the online sources wherever possible. If that were not allowed on Wikipedia, nobody could add or edit anything that requires research in sources that are available online or at libraries. Only at very few spots, I refer to archival files, including their signature (if available) for people curious to check them out. By now, if prefered by the community, I could even replace all of the few archival footnotes with ones to a book I recently published, which is currently added to major libraries. Constantin's bibliography that I made you aware of, which you likely have in mind saying "based on his original research", I was able to put together after months of research in Cluj library's public holdings and by browsing Romanian pre-1984 journals. Anyone can read them at respective libraries; I identified and mention each one in a footnote. Again, if that were against Wikipedia's standards, nobody could add anything gathered from browsing books or journals to this encyclopedia. ATuschinski (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material in archival files is not published material.

Generally speaking it would be better here if you were to make an argument for the subjects fulfilling the notability criteria.

The purpose of these articles is clearly hagiographical and to promote your family history project (just as all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other). Axad12 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per previous promotional attempts by an account who was presumably your paid publicist, as noted in detail here [23]. Axad12 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, I argued for the notability in my response, and I believe I never use "a family menber's subjective opinion", but argue with notability criteria within a framework of Romanian history and society. By now, it is for other wikipedia editors to decide about notability and quality of the articles in this discussion. This discussion is about the two articles, their content and notability - not about the author and his presumed motives as you now start speculating about. We both made our points, now others can decide.

Since you now made a wrong presumption and a false claim about me personally, I have to respond to those, but then I will drop the topic: I never employed a publicist on Wikipedia, I find your presumption offensive, and I ask you to stay on topic of notability and quality of the articles you asked to be deleted - about which you already made statments. Your claim "all of your edits are to promote yourself in some way or other" is false and offensive to the work I have put into Wikipedia for many years in several languages: I have made many accurate edits to topics close to my interests, in various languages, never "promotional" in tone and nature, and I feel strongly the term does not apply: I don't see how, e.g., neutrally worded thorough academic research on my great-grandfather, a civil servant in pre-WW2 Romania, promotes me, a German film director born in 1988. Or me digitizing and adding a photo of Servais Le Roy and Talma I found in a publication? Or adding museums in Vienna that display artifacts of Maximilian I of Mexico? Or expanding and correcting the site of the Order of the Crown of Romania greatly with accurate details? In the latter case, I got initially interested as I had a very clear 1930s photo of Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski wearing the medal that I felt could expand the page well - then, I discovered the page on Wikipedia being very incomplete and partially incorrect, and then I started expanding it with true historical information for a while, so now, it is much more complete and accurate - nothing "promotional" could come from that work for me. Or even edits to the page about me, which I carefully expanded with facts and sources in a neutral, non-promotional tone to make it more accurate, always disclosing my identity, etc.

On your talk page, there is a long discussion you had about me and my presumed motives where you, e.g., argued for deletion of my full, true legal name, date of birth etc. from the Wikipedia site about me which you then deleted - anyone interested in discussing or learning backgrounds could continue there. This discussion here, I believe, shall discuss quality and notability of the two articles you proposed for deletion, which is independent of presumptions about the author, and both you and I already made our points.

For the sake of making this discussion not overlong, I hereby respectfully withdraw from our conversation here, thank you for making your points on notability and quality, I made my points, now others can discuss and I will respond where appropriate. ATuschinski (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: WP:BLUDGEON. Axad12 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demeter was, perhaps, the highest-ranked civil servant in Cernauti. He was not the highest-ranked state official: after all, the city had a mayor, representatives in parliament, a prefect, and so on. Let’s be precise. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for the correction, please excuse my mixup in terminology - I did mean to say "civil servant", of course. I guess even though I am careful, that little slip in wording reveals I am not an English native speaker: I translated the German term "Staatsbeamter", that was named in the German-language source, which literally translates to "state official", but the correct translation is "civil servant" :-) I just did correct that terminology in the intro of the article, as well - in the body, I already wrote the correct term "civil servant". Thanks for bringing it to attention. ATuschinski (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Military, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure what the details are of the court he served as the president of are, but generally appellate court judges would be considering notable under WP:JUDGE as state/province wide officials (appellate courts are usually at a state/province level). There may be an argument Demeter meets WP:NPOL depending on how the court functioned. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On a strict reading of the guideline, I don’t think that’s the case: “international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office”. Romania has never been a federal state, its provinces are symbolic/historical with no administrative powers, and its only national court at the time was the High Court of Cassation and Justice. There are 15 appeals courts (12 in the interwar period), but their judges are generally anonymous figures. He could still be notable per ANYBIO, but I don’t see a JUDGE argument here. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll admit I'm not familiar with Romanian courts, but will note that in the U.S. any federal judge meets WP:JUDGE (including any judge on our 13 appellate courts or 94 district courts). If the appellate courts in Romania at this time weren't national courts (and by that its not national in jurisdiction, its created and appointed by the national government instead of a province or local government), then you are right that he doesn't meet WP:JUDGE. But from what you said about Romania not being a federal state, it seems to me that most of the judges would be appointed by the national government and would probably be national judges. You seem to know more about Romania's courts and Judiciary of Romania is not really helpful so if I'm totally wrong please let me know. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are around 5000 judges in Romania. Each of them is an employee of the national Justice Ministry. Each is named by a national institution and has his appointment signed off by the President of Romania. I really don’t think the guideline is meant to apply to all of them. We are talking about, in many cases, judges in small towns dealing strictly with divorces, inheritances or petty crimes. Anyway, to return to the present issue: I’m not sure exactly how the system worked in the 1920s, but Romania has always been a centralized state on the French model, so it was probably similar.

  What concerns me about Demeter is not the exact nature of his office, but the fact that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, until being brought back into the limelight by his (aggressively self-promoting) descendant. Interwar Bukovina is actually of some interest to Romanian historians, it’s not exactly an obscure area, and yet there seems to be nothing on him. Just one example: the Encyclopedia of Bukovina, in three thick volumes with hundreds upon hundreds of entries, does not mention him. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Biruitorul,

  thank you for your input. While I cannot comment on other regions / other Courts of Appeal in Romania, I respectfully challenge your assessment of the importance of Region / Court of Appeal when it comes to Bukovina / Cernăuți Court of Appeal, as this is my field of academic research. As explained by Mircea Duțu in 2018 (referenced in the article), in Bukovina, there were after 1918 three legal systems in place: The Austrian one, the Russian one and the Romanian one, depending on geographical area. The Cernăuți Court of Appeal therefore had the particular task of dealing with this on a daily basis until the legal system was unified with the remainder of Romania in 1938, as is also explained in many articles of that era. Its decisions and interpretations were widely discussed, and many Romanian legal scholars as well as state officials were particularly involved and in touch with the court. Reading the publications of the era, it is a fascinating field - the journal Pagini Juridice, for example, offers a myrad of sources.

  It is clear that the Cernăuți Court of Appeal held a very important function in interwar Romania at least until 1938, a "link" between the legal system in Bukovina and the rest of Romania (to put it in very colloquial terms), and it was perceived that way in many publications of the era. There were direct meetings with the president of the court with the minister of justice to discuss topics related to Bukovina, and hundreds of press articles show the particular importance the court and its function held for the population of the region as the legal system of Bukovina was gradually incorporated in Romania's.

  Re: Your argument that he appears to have fallen totally into oblivion for about 80 years, and your unfriendly assessment of me as aggressively self-promoting (I do not believe I have ever written "promotional" content, and I believe it is better etiquette to assume people act in good faith): In your assessment, you overlooked several academic publications mentioning Demeter R. v. Tuschinski / Dimitrie Tusinschi, like Albumul Mare al Societăților Academice „Arboroasa” și Junimea din Cernăuți, 2015, the first publication of a (due to the 1947-89 time) almost lost work, edited by Marian Olaru and others in Radauti. In their foreword, you can learn more about the difficulty in preserving that history, and how it was almost lost. Duțu also mentions Dimitrie Tusinschi (Demeter R. v. Tuschinski) in his 2018 article, and there are more. The importance Bukovina society put upon Demeter before WW2 is firmly established by many sources, he was not only known as a president of the court of appeal, but also for many charitative actions he participated in or initiated - sometimes, even articles and speeches he wrote and held were printed over multiple newspaper pages of major Bukovina pre-WW2 press, about legal and social issues, many articles were published about him, and so on, the Wikipedia article I wrote offers a small glimpse in its footnotes. Everything I quote in the article is a direct quote from those.

  When I started work on my PhD in history about Demeter's biography recently, it was met with enthusiasm in relevant academic circles, and I received feedback that this research is important, bringing a notable and fascinating figure of interwar years back to attention. I am in contact with several academics who work on Bukovina, and I know that in the next years, more articles will be published addressing Demeter and Constantin, not only by me, but by several others. The more I research Bukovina history of the interwar years, the more I see important members of society whose existence was basically "forgotten" due to Socialist Romania's policies post-WW2, and who are still not well researched today. There is a number of unrelated, notable people I plan to write Wikipedia articles about with the same level of detail and research as about Constantin and Demeter, as this is my style of writing encyclopedic articles.

  Notability cannot be established or not by mentions in research of the past 80 years - but, in this instance in particular, by the importance society put upon the person when he was active. Otherwise, people notable during their lifetime who are no longer much discussed would have to be deleted from Wikipedia - which would go against a lot of encyclopedic ideals. I stand by my assessment that notability is firmly established by all sources in the articles, and that rather the articles shall be judged by their contents than by their author (again, I do not think your assessment about me is particularly accurate or fair, and I object to the term "promotion").

  I find it puzzling how this deletion proposal combines Demeter with his son Constantin, whose notability lies in his publications pre- and post-WW2, not in the office he held - two very different, independent articles are combined into a deletion discussion, their only connecting link is their relation to me, not their contents. As a recent example about Constantin (that is independent of his general notability for Wikipedia), his collected 1929-1942 works, which I republished this year, will receive additional coverage in Romanian and international academic publications in the next months, and the volume is presently added to several international academic libraries who deemed it notable for inclusion, four of which you can already find online on worldcat.

  Biruitorul, it appears you are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Romanian history, which I appreciate a lot. I always assume the best intentions, and I feel instead of trying to find reasons to delete two notable historical figures from Bukovina because you appear to have doubts/misunderstandings about my motifs (?), it might be more productive to collaborate in the future to add additional articles involving the era and region. I assure you I work out of idealism. Work on my ancestors' pages is not "promotional" at all; I spend a lot of time to complete gaps about Northern Bukovina history that were often overlooked and that I now unearth with my research. I would be delighted to send you several notable names and sources if you were interested to write new articles whom I have found during my research - there are many gaps in articles on Bukovina that could be filled, and maybe you would like to participate :) ATuschinski (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note once again WP:BLUDGEON. The purpose of this discussion is for non-conflicted users to express their opinions - not for a relative of the subject to relentlessly argue for the article to be kept. You are blatantly and consistently involved in self-promotionalism, even the post above is promotional. You just can't stop talking about yourself. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Demeter's post and his honours, most notably Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown of Romania, a very high honour, would suggest that he is indeed notable. "Minor local officials" do not generally receive such high honours or so many of them. Constantin's literary career would also seem to make him notable. I would argue that both meet WP:GNG in any case given the level of sourcing. I can see no good reasons for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the level of detail and length of the article? Axad12 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  300 living people could hold that award. It’s the type of medal that can be mentioned in the biography of someone already found to be notable, but doesn’t confer notability on its own. As for his position, one need only look up current presidents of Romanian tribunals to find they’re not really notable. Example: Alina Marcela Curelaru, who heads the tribunal in Piatra Neamț. Zero in-depth coverage, from what I can see. Finally, the sourcing is pretty weak, a mishmash of newspaper clippings and unverifiable archival material. The fact that no contemporary historian of Bukovina (who isn’t a family member) bothers to mention these characters speaks volumes. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I don’t really see a convincing case for notability here. Moreover, the behavior of the articles’ creator during this discussion has been less than ideal. On the slight chance either subject may be notable, the articles should be restarted from scratch. The present versions simply are too compromised by original research. (Note to closing administrator: I originally nominated without a position, but only now decided on a stance.) — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this AfD, and was on the fence at first, however after a BEFORE search, it is clear to me now that the article should not be retained in the encyclopedia. The article is part of an effort to promote the Tuschinski family. No disrespect to the family is intended by this statement, however the encyclopedia is not the place for promoting one’s relatives or oneself. That is precisely what personal websites and social media are for. WP:PROMO and WP:COI apply in this case. This individual is not notable per Wikipedia criteria. He was simply doing his job well, which is run-of-the-mill for millions upon millions of individuals in the world. WP:MILL. The award is not significant enough to meet biographic benchmarks nor basic notability. The article seems to have original research and non-objective content which raises WP:OR and neutral point of view concerns. The bludgeoning of the discussion and long walls of text is not helping the situation, which has been twice suggested and I concur, that the article creator, who is a direct relative of the subject, and is also writing his PhD dissertation on this relative, permit the discussion to unfold naturally without bucking against opposing opinions -please let others speak. The article, while crafted/formatted nicely as a family memorial, fails WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ATuschinski does actually have a third COI in relation to this subject. As well as being a relation of the subject and doing his phd on the subject (as pointed out by Netherzone), the user has also very recently published a book on the subject. The following self-citation confirming this was recently removed from the Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski article: Further reading: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations. Collected Works 1929-1942. With an English language biography of the author by Alexander Tuschinski. Norderstedt 2024, ISBN. The following promotional self-citation was recently removed from the article for Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski: Tuschinski, Alexander: Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski - Biography, in: Tuschinski, Constantin Ritter von / Tușinschi, Constantin D.: European Union, State Parties and Political Transformations, Collected Works 1929-1942, Norderstedt 2024. Numerous sources and information are printed in the work, as well as memories of conversations with Constantin von Tuschinski. Setting up Wikipedia articles to coincide with the publication of a book you have published on the same subjects is a particularly flagrant breach of COI/PROMO guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, thanks for pointing that out. There might also be a financial interest in promoting the book in relation to this article and perhaps the article on the other relative.

  I did notice the creator had used WP to promote themself and their own films, and that both his autobiography and the films were deleted on the German Wikipedia, if I am not mistaken. Netherzone (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koeut Pich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this football player passes WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The only sources I could turn up (or in the article) are databases, routine match coverage and routine transfer coverage. If you find any sources in Cambodian I may have missed, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I did find Post Khmer (translated) but it's not enough. Current article's sources not enough for either guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reth Lyheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary sources for this footballer to pass WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. We have perhaps one here but we need more. It's entirely possible I missed something in Cambodian, so please ping me if you know of additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Marques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entire professional career was 15 minutes in two substitute games in the second division. Another example of a player who passed the antiquated WP:NFOOTY but falls far short of WP:GNG. There's a source for him joining Académica but that's...academic...if he did nothing of note for the club. [41] This obviously doesn't count for notability or not, but this club Facebook post (note the different spelling) may indicate that the subject is deceased, just thought I'd say. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTCRIT criteria. The only involvement is in Liga Portugal 2. 2 matches. 15 minutes playing time ([42]). In Taça de Portugal, playing time is 341 minutes over 4 matches ([43]). QEnigma (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zé Miguel Esteves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entire professional career was the 12-minute League Cup debut mentioned in the text (for a second division club). Never played a game in second division or higher, and a Google search is just giving me database results (his playing name, short for José Miguel, is very common, but even when combined with a club, yields me no sources). Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a brief article on Futebol Distrital de Leiria but it's certainly not enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations: but given the fact that the plot is different, it has an obviously different cast, including notable actors, and coverage about this ongoing apparently popular series with almost 300 episodes exists I am really not opposed to Keep. What I am very opposed to is deletion. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The show passes WP:NTVNATL straightway. There is ample coverage on its production, plot summaries (episodic), and cast updates, all supporting notability (majority being from Marathi media). There’s no strong basis for deletion. After the deletion discussion (if it remains), a request for article protection could be pursued.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onais Bascome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This article is just a list of squads he was picked for and all the cited sources are routine match reports and squad listings. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Caribbean. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral. There isn't much substance to the article, but he would have met the minimum inclusion criteria that were in place at the time (i.e., having played international cricket for an ICC associate nation in a global qualifier). The goalposts have shifted since then, and I agree that articles shouldn't be created for players if even if they do meet the minimum eligibility criteria unless there is a decent amount of information beyond squad selections. Bs1jac (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bermuda Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Please ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As the proposer of this AFD I agree the suggested redirect would also be an adequate alternative. Shrug02 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for a redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bs1jac: Would you support a redirect as an ATD? JTtheOG (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JTtheOG: Yes. Any such AfD should be redirected to the relevant list where possible.Bs1jac (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bs1jac and @JTtheOG Just for clarification I would have redirected this page instead of sending it to AFD had it not previously been subject to an AFD discussion the outcome of which was (bizarrely in my opinion) to keep the article. Shrug02 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really wasn't bizarre at all for the time. Back when footballers were automatically notable for playing one minute in the Moldovan National Division. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I agreed with your redirect suggestion and was merely explaining why I didn't just redirect it in the first place. Let's just leave it at that. Shrug02 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you got combative. All I was doing was light-heartedly pointing out the absurdity of past rules, but I hope you have a better day. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic settlement units in Brno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists are usually by county, state or country, so this could be made into a list of places (or statistical or administrative units) in the South Moravian Region or there could be separate pages for each district, including Brno-City District. Peter James (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenteman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific inclusion criteria referenced to reliable sources -- but the only attempt at a notability claim here, the confusingly-worded "His Royal Majesty Nene Sakite II, Konor of Manya Krobo - Ghana honours Kenteman and Queen Asabia Cropper" under an honours and awards header, is supported only by a reference that just says he was "acknowledged" alongside his sister for an award presented to her, at a festival that isn't prominent (or music-oriented) enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #8 in and of itself.
And the article is referenced entirely to sources in which he's a secondary tag-along in coverage about the sister, with absolutely no sources that are about Kenteman in his own right shown at all.
Further, this has already been sandboxed in draftspace, before being moved right back into mainspace by its creator with only minimal attempt at improvement, so just resandboxing it again would have to be discussed and would probably require move protection.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFB. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too soon at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gourlay (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't look notable, unless people can find offline significant coverage about him. Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football seems sensible, but worth having an AFD discussion in case anyone finds some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Canada. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments/sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nomination and GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He was the captain of an Olympic-gold-winning football team and seems to have been considered Canada's star of his era, additionally being a top official in the country's governing football organization ([44]). Here's coverage in the U.S. from the Detroit Free Press ([45]), noting him to be "probably the best known football player in Canada"; further coverage from the Free Press at his retirement ([46]) said that he "will gown down as Canada's most famous fullback" and said that he was well known in the Detroit, U.S.-area as well. Historian Colin Jose gave him ~130 words calling him "the father of football in Galt ... One of the best known Canadian players in the United States during his era ... Recognized as the greatest full back in Ontario at the time but was also regarded as a fine captain." Here's also a bit of Montreal Star coverage regarding a dispute over his professionalism, calling him "the famous full back of the Galt Olympic champions" several years after the event. His notability appears clear: @GiantSnowman and Clariniie: BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11. Mets WP:NOLYMPICS as a gold medalist in the 1904 Summer Olympics, in addition to the coverage found. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Clearly signficiant figure in Canadian soccer. Thanks, 04:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.

As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per WP:POVFORK There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, we have Criticism of … articles for Criticism of socialism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of Marxism

Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.

Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.

AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to keep this. This is a matter of editorial judgment, since we all know that the sources exist. It's IMO not an unreasonable summary-style split, and since we have Criticism of democracy, Criticism of socialism, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of monarchy, Criticism of libertarianism, etc., it is certainly not an unusual choice. If you thought that the content was better off in the main article, then Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be a better way to handle it than AFD, but I'd point out that with the main article already at nearly 14,000 words and over 300 inline citations, WP:SIZE is an issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SUBPOV as an article whose subject is a point of view. "Criticism of fascism", as with criticism of most influential global ideologies, is notable enough for its own page. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OKFORK, as well as important to not conflate the movements of anti-fascism and with a critique of the political ideology. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The shiny new xfd tool I installed failed to work, so I will retype my argument; while I do believe the article needs work, particularly on its tone, I do feel like the topic has strong grounds for an article, and there is a decent foundation here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems to be distinct from Anti-fascism. Definitely a notable subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is largely redundant and lacks justification for its existence as a standalone page. The main Wikipedia entry on Fascism already provides a comprehensive, nuanced overview of its defining characteristics, failures, and global condemnation. Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms in a less coherent and poorly organized manner. Moreover, the presentation is overly verbose and fragmented, making it challenging for readers to navigate or derive meaningful value. Much of the content feels like a disjointed rehash of established ideas without a compelling reason for separation from the main article. If the intent was to provide a focused critique, the execution falls short; the article lacks a clear thesis, suffers from repetition, and fails to deliver fresh perspectives. Consolidating the most relevant points into the main Fascism article would serve readers better, eliminating unnecessary duplication while enhancing the overall quality and cohesion of Wikipedia’s content on this topic.TitCrisse (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the Fascism article can be considered comprehensive when it doesn't even mention the glorification of war, or anything about the economy or governance under fascism.

Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms

This feels like you asked ChatGPT to criticize the article, and this is what is came up with. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to offer new insights. "Merely" reiterating well-documented criticisms is exactly what we're supposed to do. The rest of your post similarly sounds like ChatGPT criticizing a student essay, but this isn't trying to be an essay with "a clear thesis" that delivers "fresh perspectives", it's an encyclopedic article that summarizes well-known and common criticisms of fascism. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. I actually agree with the original requester who said this article serves as a 'WP:POV fork' mainly focused on its failures in WWII. Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay rather than an encyclopedic entry.

Yes, Wikipedia articles shouldn't offer 'new insights'—they summarize established information—but this article doesn't do so effectively. It lacks a coherent structure and simply rehashes points already well-covered in the main Fascism article. If the goal is to provide focused criticism, then it fails in its execution, precisely because it doesn’t bring anything new or valuable to the table. Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is.

As for your claim that the main article on Fascism isn’t comprehensive because it doesn’t mention the glorification of war or economic governance—those points could absolutely be added to the existing article, enriching it, rather than justifying a separate, poorly executed fork. Consolidating this content into the main article would better serve the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. Let’s focus on enhancing the main entry rather than defending a fragmented, subpar offshoot.TitCrisse (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you add in your own words, it's still obvious when your post is primarily written for you by AI. If you don't have anything worth writing yourself then you don't have anything worth responding to.Photos of Japan (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TitCrisse, it does sound like your arguments are generated by AI, not by a human editor. I've reviewed thousands of AFD discussions at this point and I doubt any human editor would talk about the encyclopedia’s mission of clarity and comprehensiveness. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that these two qualities are Wikipedia's "mission". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes, some of it might be. Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people. Please do go ahead and report my previous sentence to admins on this great encyclopedia. A quick CU search will confirm you are a CRAZY MEAT PUPPET THAT LOVES JIMMY REX. Again, in my humble opinion, I am getting CRAZY THIRD REICH vibes off of this whole crazy harassement. I am going to give EVERY GODDAMENED PERSON on this thread 48 hours to cool off. YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are assuming bath faith in me. Please realize I am no dummy. You cannot ARM CHAIR WARRIOR your way out of this. TitCrisse (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TitCrisse is now globally locked for lock evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zemun Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydoh8^[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either Zemun#Sport or FK Zemun if no coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would run afoul of WP:XY. Ravenswing 04:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To fix WP:XY, I would say redirect to Zemun#Sport if no coverage is found because the topic is broader than FK Zemun. --Habst (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection. Ravenswing 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be absolutely astounded if this isn't notable. I'll try to do a source search in a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AFD which contains numerous sources. GiantSnowman 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of those sources do you claim provides SIGCOV to the subject? Ravenswing 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources at the previous AfD demonstrate notability, along with [47] [48] and books such as Srbija: znamenitosti i lepote (1965) SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other issue is this stadium is known by several different names, making BEFORE searches more difficult. Recent coverage also includes [49] [50] SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the sources identified here or in the previous AfD to the article would likely help garner consensus quicker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Petrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mildly promotional biography of a music marketer who fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG; moved to mainspace after being declined at AFC. She seems to have received some coverage for a past connection to Britney Spears, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Spears. The coverage of this connection is also tabloid coverage (Mirror, Daily Soap Dish, People), which is disallowed for establishing notability per WP:SBST. The remaining sources are limited to:

• WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:TRADES publication MusicRow ([51], [52], [53], [54], [55])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60])
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([61], [62])
• Promotional material like coverage in Forbes of a Forbes-sponsored panel discussion ([63])

As for her 30 Under 30 listings ([64], [65]), there is no consensus that these are the kinds of awards that would make someone independently notable under WP:ANYBIO. (The Forbes 30 under 30 is "awarded" to 1,230 people each year across geographies and industries so is not a rare honor.) I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is nothing more than a glorified CV. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe Cassie Petrey's Wikipedia page meets the notability criteria for individuals in the field of business and entertainment. Her contributions to the industry have been covered in notable publications such as Forbes, Billboard, and Rolling Stone, showcasing her influence and accomplishments.

Key points supporting her notability include:

• Leadership in innovative digital marketing campaigns for globally known artists, including Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys.
• Recognition in authoritative industry outlets and her inclusion in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list.
• Active contributions to discussions about artist-fan engagement in the digital age through interviews and articles.

The page provides verifiable sources documenting her work and impact, aligning with Wikipedia's content policies. Deleting this page would remove a valuable figure in the modern entertainment and marketing industries. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@24eeWikiUser Did you use ChatGPT or a similar program to generate this text? GPTZero gives this a 100% probability of being WP:AIGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saiman Says (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources include four YouTube videos and three blog articles, such as TOI Readers’ Blog and Talk Esports. I don’t think GNG is met here. GrabUp - Talk 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp: I have replaced three of the four YouTube videos with news articles. It will be helpful if you can let me know which ones are the blog articles. Pur 0 0 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - fails to meet WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Cameroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no "National Library of Cameroon". The current coordinates given are to the national museum. The national archives, which are the largest museum in the country, have their own seperate entry.-- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Cameroon. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to National Archives of Cameroon which appears to be the case with the French article where Archives nationales du Cameroun talks about the volume it holds if I'm reading it correctly. Star Mississippi 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you make of the first reference? The deletion discussion says there is no "National Library of Cameroon" but the source suggests there is.

On another note, the coordinates given (3.8611940644516403°N 11.516500695387736°E) are highly suspect. I'm not sure where those came from, but they have an astonishing 16 decimal digits of precision, which is sub-nanometer precision and nonsensical for a building. Crystalholm (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothstack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Post-PROD undeletion; article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. All coverage based on a single incident. As disclosed, I am an employee of the company. TimJohn67 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Nominator has a clear paid COI with the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm not sure running a predatory company is the stuff of notability here. Could be seen as a form of PROMO to whitewash these issues? Regardless, I I can only find PR items, nothing helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fishes Preschool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, no obvious redirect target. Sources are routine coverage or not independent. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Florida. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Multiple new secondary WP:RS directly referencing the school over decades. Local newsapers as well as county & state government websites and reports ZebulonMorn (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You added things like [66] and [67] but I can't find anything about the Little Fishes Preschool on these pages? Fram (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read carefully:

  [68] Page 21 – Title:Little Fishes Preschool to begin registration

  [69] Page 11 – Title:Community helpers week ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that you linked to other pages, it was rather hard to find these. You can't expect people to read a whole local newspaper to find what you intended. Both articles are routine local coverage, not the kind of thing that makes a school notable. Fram (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Command F on mac at least takes 2 seconds? ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Search on Chrome returns nothing here, and the internal search of the website returns "Unknown error occurred We apologize for the inconvenience. Click here to return to the library. Click here to report the problem." And none of this explains why you would link to page 4 if the article is on page 21. Fram (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious [70] [71] [72] [73] ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED. Fram (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason he's notorious, murdering children, is separate. The fact he has interacted with and had a history with children, relates heavily. Additionally, this tragic incident has gained notability in recent years with a more modern outlook and approach to police reform which has altered public perception of domestic violence by police. The association of the subject with the school/children is an interesting example of the complex nature of mental illness and violence, as well as this school and the broader educations system's inability to detect potential threats. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, no connection at all, just like I thought. Fram (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So had he gone to the dry cleaners instead, we wouldn't note that in their article. That's a very thin string upon which to build an article. Had he shot up the school maybe you'd have something. This isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Preschools usually do not hold N/GNG universally outside a few prominent ones, and this one is standard and WP:MILL. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC
• Delete Does not meet any standards for notability. All sourcing is primary self-published, inclusion in lists of accredited daycares (which, let's be honest...if we're using that then every single accredited daycare deserves an article, which is utterly bonkers), or small announcements in local newspapers (which does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. The stuff about Terry's notability transferring to a daycare he once visited is almost a comically stereotypical case of WP:NOTINHERITED, again...do we do an article on every entity that had a cursory interaction with a notable person or event? It'd be like having an article on every place that has a "George Washington visited here" sign inside. If someone wanted to include this information in Terry's article, then maybe, but it does NOT mean it deserves an article on its own. nf utvol (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strong failure of WP:MILL. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The school's website, then various listings, then an indeed post.... There just aren't enough sources to show notability. Having a police officer visit the school that later murders his family is a bit of a stretch to notability.... If he had gone to the bakery instead, we wouldn't note that in the bakery's article. Outside of this, there isn't anything to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Every single source can be easily categorized as (a) their own website or social media account, (b) a very brief government listing, (c) a brief mention in the news so attenuated in proximate cause that it's bordering upon urban legend, or (d) run of the mill coverage, or some combination of the above. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Urban legend" is a new one in AfD, we've not used that as a potential source to show notability. There is simply nothing that's contributing to notability from all that I've read above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing that establishes notability. While I generally stand on the inclusion side of things, this doesn't make the cut. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broden Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to demonstrate relevant reliable sources or meeting of WP:GNG as to why Broden Kelly is notable in his own right as opposed to being a member of Aunty Donna. At present the vast majority of the article is a repetition of information on the article for Aunty Donna itself, which highlights the lack of notability as an individual.

The limited information sourced about him himself outside of Aunty Donna looks to be extended comments from a pair of podcast appearances, those he has an employment relationship with (such as a football club) or from his own personal social media accounts, which fail to demonstrate the requirements of reliable, third-party sources to meet notability.

Article should be Redirected to the Aunty Donna page until such a time notability in his own right can be demonstrated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Australia. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boriswave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I have never heard this term used before. As another user observed this appears to have been referred to by a single writer for the Telegraph. I suspect the intent behind creating this article seems to be to create chatter so that it becomes a meme, which is subsequently used as a reason to have the page. John Smith's (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This term is widely used on Twitter. I've seen it like 20 times this year 213.147.110.205 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a term being used by 20 people on social media deserves its own article. John Smith's (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in common circulation on twitter and other social media outlets.

And it's certainly not 20 people. The OP reference that they personally had seen it 20 times. There's no hard and fast statistical analysis on this - just like many cultural references.

I suspect there's political motivation to prevent this article as it criticises Boris Johnson and he has a large base of political supporters. Gp1v07 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm the only person that's suggested the page be deleted. In contrast there's a sudden influx of unregistered users and people with few historical edits arguing to keep the page.

You've not exactly contributed much to Wikipedia, have you? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a [omissis] measuring contest, or a place for open debate? 94.196.172.99 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing for over 15 years, albeit infrequently. So it's pretty obvious I'm not what you allude to. My knowledge, academic qualification and professional experience is specialised in history and politics, hence why I make occasional contributions in these areas.

Does frequency of contributing make someone's views more valid? Gp1v07 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is a well sourced article and the terminology has clearly been used in more sources than the Telegraph, as has already been pointed out on the Talk page. To say otherwise is disingenuous and it seems you were more quick to call it a "clearly ridiculous" article than to actually check the sources. 148.252.144.37 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As was pointed out on the talk page, there is already an article called Modern immigration to the United Kingdom and a section on immigration following the UK's departure from the EU and the Covid pandemic. It would make more sense to add a reference to "Boriswave" in that section if it's really that common, rather than create an entire article to duplicate the topic. John Smith's (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already a reference in the ‘modern immigration to the U.K.’ article, and it links to the nominated page, where more high quality sources are available. I see no reason to delete considering the number of reliable and relevant citations. 2A01:CB06:9002:F604:C07F:821B:4642:E424 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — @John Smith's has assumed bad faith in this discussion.

Mass third-world immigration and the Conservative Party’s repeated choice not to reduce or end it (as they promised) are two of the major topics in contemporary British politics. They deserve their own article outside Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So have a descriptive title rather than use something that is not common. If you asked the man on the street they wouldn't know what the "boriswave" is. Not least because the "wave" hasn't ended - net migration to the UK remains high. John Smith's (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but with the caveat that I would not be opposed to a name change. I think there are clearly two different issues here - the phenomenon of increased migration from non-EU countries to the UK after the 2019 elections seems to be noteworthy enough to deserve its own article in my opinion. On the other hand, there isn't really any reliable evidence that the term 'Boriswave' is in widespread in any mainstream media. I could only find one article in the Daily Telegraph. It's unfortunate that there is no generally accepted term for this phenomenon, but it isn't Wikipedia's job to coin one. Sides-Daren? (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the phenomenon is worthy of coverage, and is reliably sourced. Elshad (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can find a few reliable sources that use the term to describe the recent surge of migration to the UK: Unherd, The Critic, The Telegraph, Reaction. The issue seems to be that they're split between using "Boriswave", "Boris Wave" and "Boris-wave"... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There was a qualitative change in immigration to the United Kingdom after Brexit, in countries of origin and the inflection point in numbers. Both the phenomenon and the name are supported by the sources. I see no need to merge into another article, Wikipedia is not limited by space, so we can go into detail in a dedicated article. cagliost (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a term created by a right-wing twitter subculture, and nearly all of its uses outside of this twitter subculture have been in polemical articles by writers who are part of that subculture. This article contains no information that couldn't be folded into Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. And considering that the guy who created the term also created this article, or at least is implying that on twitter, I see some conflict of interest.Theodore Christopher (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no article on wikipedia that contains information that cannot be folded into another page. You can fold the information in a page about insulin into a page about something completely arbitrary to the topic, if you wanted. It doesn't make sense to do this though, because different articles have different focuses. Modern immigration page describes the overall and ongoing trend of modern immigration in the United Kingdom, whereas the Boriswave article in question deals with a description of the term and its context. I get a sense that you might be politically biased from your phrasing and this would itself imply a conflict of interest. Even if what you state is correct, why does this mean the term doesn't warrant its own page especially considering the context and references conveniently apportioned to the term just below (which would otherwise be much harder to find in a sea of references, in another page)? Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles on Wikipedia are combined and scrutinized because of relevance issues all the time. In any event, what this article calls the "Boriswave", a surge in immigration since 2021, is neatly within the purview of "Modern immigration to the UK". The far larger-scale 2015 influx of Syrian refugees into Germany doesn't even have its own distinct article, not because it isn't extremely well-attested to in the media, but because that surge is covered within 2015 European migrant crisis and Immigration to Germany. So, yeah, regardless of my feelings about Twitter user Max Tempers, this is just not an article that belongs on Wikipedia for the time being.Theodore Christopher (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources focus on the term, only really mentioning the term as a passing, trivial reference so therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV. Even a basic search doesn't bring the term up in connection to what it purports to. I agree with Theodore above, anything of substance can easily be merged into the UK immigration article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're meant to take a user called "The C of E God Save the King!" seriously when discussing Conservative Party policies!? 81.158.176.237 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • IP @81.158.176.237:, may I suggest you please read WP:NPA? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      God Smite the King wouldn't really work in most cases. I rather enjoy that user name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is a well sourced article and a simple search on Twitter shows hundred of entries simply for the past week. The term is clearly in active use and frequently referenced. Arugia (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Twitter is not a reliable source, and usage of a term does not make the term suitable for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Boriswave is a term" - but Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, not a dictionary. Contrary to the assertions of some !voters above, the article is not strongly sourced: the sources are of variable quality, full of errors, and offer only passing mentions which briefly use the term (or variants of it) without discussing it. That is clear deletion territory. The substance of the article, such as it is, concerns Modern immigration to the United Kingdom which already exists as an article. There's basically nothing worth merging, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all the sources are good, but enough of them are. cagliost (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is this supposed to be an article about immigration to the UK in recent years since Brexit (which happens to be called a boriswave), or an article about a notable term (boriswave) which has been applied to recent immigration? If it's about recent immigration, then sources exist and it might be notable, but I'm dubious because immigration has been a continuous, perennial issue in the UK since the Romans turned up, so it's questionable whether the sources justify a new article specifically for recent immigration. On this basis I'm a maybe-weak-keep provided it's moved to a better title. But if it's about the term, it's definitely not notable, because no matter how prevalent a term is in Twitter, we need it to be recognised in longer-lasting, serious sources, which would make me a delete. Elemimele (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elemimele: It seems to me to be a bit of a WP:COATRACK, which would then make it fall foul of being a WP:SYNTH article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep. The sources that support its use are of variable quality, but the way in which the pace and composition of immigration to the United Kingdom changed so dramatically post-Brexit, and the political controversy it has caused, may be worthy of a seperate article that goes into the phenomenon in depth. Regarding the views of an editor above that the term is a product of a social media subculture, I share this concern and think a name change might be worthwhile, but believe the article should stay at least for now. Holyisland (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to the "Modern immigration" page where the term is already used, seems like a decent option instead of deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded - I believe that User:Oaktree b's proposal of merging the article with the "Modern Immigration" page to flesh out where the term is already used seems like a sensible solution to this issue. BillyDee (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This term will probably come to be used for this immigration wave (I can think of no other word to use despite wanting to avoid such a word) and so wish to make clear that this AfD should not be used to prevent future articles titled so if it is nominated for deletion.

EPEAviator (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom as per User:Oaktree b, there's way too much WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here, with at least three of the references in the lead alone[74][75][76] being to articles or primary sources about UK migration in general, which don't use any of the terms. Comment a twitter account (@PolitlcsUK) with 330k followers has drawn attention to this article's creation which may bring extra attention. Orange sticker (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Boriswave is a statistically distinct phenomenon in the modern history of immigration into the UK, and as such deserves its own page. Benjji22212 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Modern immigration to the United Kingdom, probably. However I feel the need to point out that in addition to the Sam Bidwell's piece for The Telegraph (already in the references) the term seems to be catching up in the blogosphere, with multiple examples over last few weeks I could find by googling. Slovborg (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was originally merge, but feel people have made plenty of decent arguments here for keep. It also seems to be more in use than previously thought due to different ways of writing it. I suspect even if this article gets deleted it will be back in some form in a few years as the level of immigration into the UK over the past 4 years is completely unheard of in the history of the UK. Historians will want a way to refer to it, and it seems there's a catchy one gaining popularity. 2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:C862:50D2:90F7:AD5E (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd literally *never* heard of this before today. A Google search for "Boriswave" brings up absolutely nothing. Ninehundreddollarydoos (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

What exactly is the articles existence detracting from? what confusion does it generate to exist, on its own, independent of other articles covering the same topic like the aforementioned modern immigration to the United Kingdom.

Provided the page is well referenced, and that there is proper disambiguation to cover similar terms like 'boris wave' or 'Boris-wave' and point in the direction of other pages, let it exist. It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, which has been used in the mainstream media so it's not random.

It's not simply a replication of the other page because it contains information vital to understanding the term. It's also not possible to fold the information into another page without altering the focus and convenience of what is stated in the current 'boriswave' article; what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote and a decision between repeating previous information in the page to provide immediate context (which would create time inefficiency for users looking for those terms in different sections using ctrl+f, for example) or an inconveniently lacking summarisation of the term with at best a pointer back to the previously mentioned information. Jbeda.2000 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the articles existence detracting from?, see WP:HARMLESS. what confusion does it generate to exist, independent of other articles covering the same topic, see WP:POVFORK. Provided the page is well referenced, well that's the crux of the issue, it isn't well sourced; it's all passing mentions in WP:RSOPINION. It is after all a Wikipedia page primarily explaining what the 'boriswave' term means, except Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY; perhaps you were looking for wiktionary. what you would be left with is a more obscure footnote which based on how little the terms seems to be used thus far in WP:RSs, and per WP:PROPORTION, seems appropriate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had been considering AFDing this myself as a WP:POVFORK of Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. I'm finding virtually nothing about this usage of "Boriswave" or "Boris wave" in reliable sources, and for the most part, the references in the article itself don't specifically discuss it either.Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elshad. We don't delete pages just because one editor hasn't heard of the topic. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If actually you look, there is actually a fair amount of POLICY based delete !votes that amount to more than not having head of it. I'm actually having a hard time seeing any keep !votes that make reference to policy, and I will remind that it is the quality arguments (not number of !votes) that decides consensus (WP:DETCON). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTDICT failure. Despite some assertions above we don't make articles on subjects just because they are popular on WP:TWITTER. All of the sources in the article or presented here either don't mention the term or are WP:RSOPINION that use it in passing. I've yet to see any in-depth non-opinion reliable source that is actually about the term, to show that it meets WP:N. Anything of use is already at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT. Few if any reliable sources use the term. Modern immigration to the United Kingdom is the correct place to cover the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any reliable sources providing sigcov to this topic. In fact, it seems to me that most coverage about "Boriswave" is about the lofi beats rather than immigration. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - keep because I see significant coverage, weak because I find it distasteful. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Could stand to be merged into the overarching article, as this does seem like a bit of a POV-fork. Possibly rename to a non-neological title, but this is a pretty weak option imo. CR (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. The term is well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggat (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is well documented and refers to a genuine phenomenon that has been noted in many mainstream news outlets. It is a significant enough change in immigration to the UK (unprecedented numbers, switch from EU to non-EU) that it is worth having a separate article. It is similar in concept to the 'Lawson Boom' (the macroeconomic conditions at the end of the 1980s associated with Nigel Lawson), on which there is an article, rather than simply being folded into the article on Nigel Lawson or on 'The British economy in the 1980s'. Thermocycler (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For both you and Tiggat: The term is well documented what (non-opinion) reliable source document the term. And as to the Lawson Boom article, making arguments to keep/delete based on other article's existence is generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be that nobody has got round to sorting out that not-particularly-well-sourced article. I'll also note that we don't have a separate article on the similar Barber Boom, so you can hardly call it precedent that we have articles on every catchy term the press comes up with. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete further to my comment above. It's pretty obvious that the article is about immigration, not the term "Boriswave", and the term is much, much sparser in sourcing than the actual subject of immigration. The "real" subject is covered at Modern immigration to the United Kingdom of which this article is a pointless fork, and the "named" subject lacks notability. Further, much as I dislike Johnson, I feel that carving out this particular episode in immigration and attaching his name to it feels very much like an attempt to politicise Wikipedia, a mudslinging exercise, which is hardly in keeping with neutral point of view. The Modern immigration article is much more encyclopedic. Elemimele (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, at best, rename. There is barely any sourcing of the term itself, and there are other articles about immigration to UK. - Karel Bílek (talk). 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hard Delete. This article unequivocally fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and neutrality, warranting a hard delete. The term itself is scarcely referenced in reliable sources, with most mentions being fleeting or confined to opinion pieces and social media chatter. This lack of substantial, independent coverage violates Wikipedia’s core policies, including WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO, as the article functions more as a dictionary definition or speculative narrative than a legitimate encyclopedic entry. Furthermore, the article serves as a WP:POVFORK, duplicating content already thoroughly addressed in Modern Immigration to the United Kingdom. Any meaningful information can and should be integrated into that broader context, where it can be presented more neutrally and cohesively. Allowing this article to remain risks politicizing Wikipedia and undermining its credibility. It is redundant, poorly sourced, and detracts from the encyclopedia’s mission to provide well-researched and balanced information. TitCrisse (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Race (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; only notability is its announcement and subsequent cancellation, with sources being mainly on these two details. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added some sources. Timur9008 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources do not convince me it has notability as a standalone article. There seem to be some mentioned links in the previous AfD, but they are permanently dead - oops. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the consensus and sources found in the first AFD. Not sure how hard the above looked but they're easily found, and some cover things beyond the simple announcement and cancellation, like it's poor reception prior to its cancellation. Only the MTV source appears to be dead, but it still existed at one point, and I even found a few new sources, so there's enough present to write an article around.

1. https://www.wired.com/2007/11/writer-explains/
2. https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/10/17/ps3-getting-caught-up-in-rat-race
3. https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/11/28/rat-race-qa
4. https://www.wired.com/2007/10/ps3s-episodic-c/
5. https://www.eurogamer.net/rat-race-unveiled-for-psn
6. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-enters-the-rat-race/1100-6181209/
7. https://web.archive.org/web/20080119145832/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1575219/20071128/index.jhtml
8. https://www.gamesradar.com/psn-gets-exclusive-comedyadventure-game/
9. https://www.destructoid.com/new-ps3-exclusive-rat-race-revealed/
10. https://www.engadget.com/2007-11-12-ps3-fanboy-inteview-rat-race.html
11. https://mcvuk.com/business-news/consoles/super-ego-reveals-ps3s-first-episodic-game/
12. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/2009-01-27-rat-race-may-be-crawling-back-from-the-dead.html

There's enough to support an article here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The notability standard is much higher for cancelled games, but there is reliable sourcing as above and in the earlier AfD about the gameplay details, development, and even some early feedback from outlets that they weren't getting good vibes from the game. This deserves to be kept. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sergecross73 did post sources here, but all are passing mentions or non-significant coverage, interviews (WP:PRIMARY) or routine announcements as regurgitated press releases. Really not convinced about the notability of this game at all. If we took this as meeting WP:GNG, then every upcoming/vaporware/cancelled video game ever would be notable and have its own article too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games as an alternative to deletion - The sources are short announcements, not SIGCOV. And one of them is an interview which counts as a primary source. --Mika1h (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with some of the assessments above. I've found the MTV source, which is neither routine nor short - its a pretty deep dive. MTV is an RS, and its written by Stephen Totillo, an experienced video game journalist. I also disagree that the coverage is simply routine - the Wired coverage talks about leaked footage, and the poor reception it got, which is anything but routine. And the rest - I don't agree with the label "passing mention" when they're articles entirely dedicated to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The MTV article is not "independent of the subject", the writer is recounting an interview and a press release. Regarding the other sources, I guess what constitutes "significant coverage" is subjective but these news announcements satisfy the "directly" part of GNG but not the "in detail" part. They are basically glorified press releases, they are reciting what Sony has told them. The Wired coverage: Yes, it has critical analysis but it's one paragraph, is that 50 words? No way that is "in detail". Again, SIGCOV is subjective but that is setting the bar really low. --Mika1h (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, that's not quite right, the MTV article is reporting on someone else's interview, and covers other things, like the game's leak on GameTrailers, its poor reception, etc. It's incorrect to try to handwave that away as some sort of interview/press release, its more nuanced than that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of cancelled PlayStation 3 games (though there isn't much to be added): Doing some in-depth search, MTV's coverage at [77] is decent, but that's where it all stops. Based on my comment above and seeing Mika1h's proposal, this is where I end up. There is simply not enough significant coverage of the game - cancelled projects can be extensively covered, even lesser known ones like Heist (video game). This just doesn't meet WP:GNG, but an alternative to deletion is always preferred. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Czyszczon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Semi-professional footballer who mostly spent his career in the reserve team. The only secondary source I found is Raciborz, a brief mention in transfer announcement, but not enough to merit a standalone article of himself. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Nothing at de.wiki. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grandma Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydoh8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Aydoh8^[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some coverage in Fox and CBS News [78], [79], Endgadget [80]... The name does bring up porn links, but we can still find some things about this granny. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced there is enough WP:SIGCOV for her to pass WP:NPERSON. There is an article on Igromania, but mostly an interview (primary source). Otherwise, she is largely mentioned in short anecdotes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the additional sources found by Jovanmilic97, I change my !vote to a keep. It's clear that NPERSON is passed at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant coverage in NBC News [81], Der Spiegel [82], The Columbus Dispatch [83], The Spokesman-Review [84], cz:Aktuálně.cz [85], has some brief commentary in The Village Voice [86]. Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to evaluate whether they are solely known for being an older person playing games, which might be better to merge somewhere. The name and blog appear to be run by her grandson and how long did the MTV G-Hole segment run, not to discredit her part. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to keep, but some input from community and the other !votes will appreciated regarding the comments by IgelRM. Another round of discussion can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's 100% individually notable enough an article at this point. The articles seem to be on the topic of "old person plays games," but at this point, she has become notable in her own right. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate what lasting impact you see at this point? I could perhaps see a merge with Video game culture. IgelRM (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. cyberdog958^Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958^Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see two reliable AND independent sources that review his work here and there. I'm looking for one more. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several reviews on JSTOR; eg Fleming book in BMJ JSTOR 25394369, Science Progress JSTOR 43415178; Nobel winners in Books Abroad JSTOR 40114429; German scene in International Affairs JSTOR 2608910. Togther with others found elsewhere appears sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. (@Bearian:) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Moleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.

I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[87] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added content, references and believe the subject is notable via WP:MUSICBIO.Didier Landner (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashampoo Burning Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unremarkable software, mostly seems liked an advert UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Definitely fails WP:GNG in its current form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found some coverage of questionable reliability in TechRadar and some mentions in a few other places. Collectively, I could not find enough sourcing to make a solid claim that the subject is notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Campan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly primary references. Not enough significant references to meet the notability criteria. - The9Man ^Talk 10:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexious Kuen Long Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough coverage or significance to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG - The9Man ^Talk 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I suggest renaming the article to "Alexious Lee" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as this name yields several news sources and coverage that could establish notability. Sunbq (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunbq Please provide the references here or add to the article so that others can review and discuss them. - The9Man ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to the article. Sunbq (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comte Samitier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've been unable to confirm the existence of this alleged title. Of the cited sources I can only access two but those two don't check out, and I see no reason to suppose that the other two are any different. This author has produced other articles on the same family, none of which can be verified either (House of Samitier, Barón de Saint-Boissec, Draft:Carlos Samitier, Draft:Barony of Highmere) - presumably a genealogical fantasy / outright hoax. Their articles on the same family have been repeatedly deleted on Spanish Wikipedia. Ingratis (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as above:[reply]

House of Samitier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barón de Saint-Boissec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, France, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Hoax. Delete the files and drafts as well and globally block the creator. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose the removal of Comte Samitier and would like to address the concerns raised regarding the validity of this article and its associated pages.
• 1. Existence of the Title

The title Comte Samitier is rooted in 18th-century Franco-Spanish nobility. While it is true that records are not widely available in mainstream publications, genealogical sources and archival documents demonstrate the family’s contributions to diplomacy, trade, and cultural advancement during this period. I can provide both primary and secondary references that substantiate the historical existence and significance of the title.

• 2. Spanish Wikipedia Deletions

The deletions on Spanish Wikipedia were primarily due to insufficient sourcing at the time. Additionally, the Samitier family’s extensive presence across Spain, France, and later Argentina adds a degree of complexity to its documentation. However, the lack of easily accessible information does not equate to fabrication. Instead, it underscores the need for further historical research and preservation of these narratives.

• 3. Proposed Solutions

Rather than deleting the article entirely, I propose the following alternatives:

• Moving the article to draft space to allow for additional research and improved sourcing. • Collaborating with other editors to expand and refine the article, ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s content and citation standards. • Exploring the possibility of a merge with relevant related pages, where appropriate.

The Samitier family’s history, like that of many noble families, has faced partial erasure over time. Their contributions deserve accurate and responsible representation. I remain committed to improving this article with credible sources to ensure its factual integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisamit (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. The LLM-generated justification is not convincing. Choess (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ASAP. The second link is a total lie, just by the title of the book (Free Masons out of NH?). The third link is dead. No secondary sources to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for the sake of accuracy, while these articles are, as said, either deliberately deceptive or hopelessly inaccurate wishful thinking, there is a genuine title "Conde de Samitier" (Count of Samitier) (see for example here) which is taken from the village of the same name, which is doubtless also the origin of the surname, but the surname of the counts is not Samitier, any more than the surname of the Duke of Wellington was Wellington. The title has an article on Spanish Wikipedia which makes it plain that these articles bear no relation to it whatsoever. Ingratis (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Gabba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that this is a notable list topic. While it is verifiable, there are very few sources who pay attention to which stadiums have hosted which centuries, normally the interest is in which player/team made centuries, not where. See also these related AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4 Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS and existing consensus that these lists are not notable. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom

  Shrug02 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR. Easily found on ESPNCricinfo statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It passes WP:NLIST, with nearly 150 centuries and there are coverage on independent sources, they just haven't been added to the page. It's a case of WP:NEXIST. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kīngitanga election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet the standard for WP:NEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. All relevant sources are primary and I cannot find secondary sources on this specific event. No opposition to a merge/redirect although I'm not sure which article would be suitable as the target. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article obviously passes WP:GNG. The only problem I see is that the title may be incorrect, as most sources do not call it an "election." SportingFlyer T·C 03:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources make this obviously pass? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said, it's fairly obvious - there's a range of sources in the article, including the Radio New Zealand article, the Sunday Star Times opinion piece, and international press from Australia and Fiji covering the process. If you view this as an article about the selection of a new monarch and not an election it's pretty clear. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are supposed to be secondary for GNG, not primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and the opinion pieces/Spinoff article clearly provide more than just routine reporting of a news event. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Cambodian here, where we have an electoral monarchy of our own. Per SportingFlyer, this article is well sourced enough to remain on Wikipedia.

  Comment But I feel like we should still call this an election. Just because the election isn't open to the majority of people doesn't mean it isn't one. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think deletion is necessary. This article meets basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are all reliable news reports which are a perfectly good basis for a WP article (otherwise we'd have to delete 2024 United States presidential election). Neither WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOTNEWS apply as far as I can see. Furius (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olfactophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable term and essay-like. Found no reliable sources online (use incognito if you're gonna search this up. I was gonna draftify this but it was already draftified, before it being recreated without much improvement so here we are... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable topic, which doesn't even warrant a standalone article. Page is also poorly formatted, and would need to be significantly improved if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: ESSAY... We don't post high school essays here. This reads as an extended dicdef. I wouldn't even bother drafting, this is a high school paper. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:TNT. Even if this were expanded and properly sourced, of which neither is true, it would still be such a mess as to require significant amounts of work. It's as if the creator has never read a Wikipedia article in their lifetime. In 2007, that was excused. In 2024, it's untenable. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks notability --Altenmann >talk 07:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG. This news article only makes a brief reference. Other articles available online are mostly social media and user generated content. WP:ORGSIG. QEnigma (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail to meet WP:GNG.--Tristancr (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Brief mentions and routine announcements do not meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or merge) to LoC. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and is just a supporting character. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A supporting character does not mean that they are not notable. There are some supporting characters with GAs DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you do a search, or are you basing things on the current state of the article? Because if you did a search and found nothing, I'd like to help you improve your skills. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that BEFORE was not articulated - I have checked online and also have seen SIGCOV that Jclemens has included.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge, per Sgeureka. What few sources provide only trivial mentions or WP:PLOT, and this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has left the project after being counseled to learn how AfD works and admitting they never did a BEFORE. Right now, there's a lot of people looking at the article and saying "I don't see sources in the article, redirect it" and others saying "Sources are easy to find, I see them." Both of which are fine opinions, but the latter are less policy based, per WP:NEXIST and WP:SURMOUNTABLE--NOT#PLOT doesn't apply to an improved version of the article, and so is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think secondary sources like "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High", while remaining close to the plot, have enough characterization and commentary of what the character represents in the series to fullfill the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. The nomination reads a lot like it was considering only the current state of the article, which is not decisive for the question of deletion. At least, as Jclemens already said, there is no WP:BEFORE articluated. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with no prejudice to revising my opinion if someone tries to improves this based on sources Daranios found or others, and pings me. Currently, however this fails WP:GNG, WP:V and like. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NEXIST a topic is notable (passes GNG) if sufficient sources exist, and nothing about copying them into the article changes that. Your opinion is not consistent with Wikipedia policy & guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]