Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Denis Chudý

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

Chudý played 14 matches for AS Trenčín before being sent to lower leagues. My searches did not show any significant coverage for him, not even in reliable secondary sources. Searching "Denis Chudý" on Google prefer to find other men with the same name instead of footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persija Jakarta–Persiraja Banda Aceh rivalry

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

I see nothing here that shows WP:NRIVALRY, this is just a head to head again. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Milan (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a drivers' signings, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos CFP (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a driver's crash and his medical update, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable: Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis

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

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Warrington Hudlin: No significant coverage, it is only mentioned in the obituaries of its three subjects. Redirect to the moderator. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agora Club International

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

Non-notable service club. There are some secondary sources that mention this organization or its regional/local chapters, but they are all routine news. Some examples: 1, 2, 3. Per my WP:BEFORE there are no WP:ORGDEPTH sources. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 10:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Turkic-Azerbaijani relations

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

Synthetic topic: Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and there's nothing here that isn't better placed somewhere either on Azerbaijani language, Oghuz languages, or Old Turkic. The roughly analogous Proto-Germanic–English connections article would surely seem absurd. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luigi video games

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

This article seems to be highly OR in terms of what is considered a "Luigi video game." A quick BEFORE yields little to no results for an overarching series bar Luigi's Mansion, which seems to be notable as a separate series. However, every other entry just happens to be every time Luigi starred in a game, with no clear reasoning as to if it's meant to count as a "series" or not. (As no source I can find links together a Game & Watch Luigi game and Mario is Missing! to any of Luigi's later solo games, for example) The Luigi's Mansion series seems notable, but every other entry this list doesn't seem to have the citations needed to really verify that they're part of a series of video games, nor do they verify that these games are even notable as a group beyond starring Luigi in them. The current article feels very unneeded, given there's nothing claiming notability for this being a notable sub-category of games, and a grouping of video games that just so happen to star a notable character just doesn't hold water. Even if the article were to be focused on Luigi's Mansion, it would need a complete TNT. This list feels better off deleted, with a Luigi's Mansion series article being made if editors find that the subject can be made into a separate article, but the concept of "Luigi video games" just doesn't seem to hold weight as either a series or as a notable sub-collection of videogames. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could definitely see this as a useful article. The reader (mainly gamers) would be able to tell which games are more focused on Luigi even if there is no leading "Luigi" title for game (ex. Mario Is Missing!). However I do think it should have been created after there were more than 15 installments, rather than 9. I feel like it leans more on the Luigi's Mansion series for notability. Sackkid (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely a lot of my problems with the current list. There's very few entries, most are unrelated to each other bar a shared protagonist, and it leans heavily on the Luigi's Mansion series as it's the only really notable "series" there. If people want to see what games Luigi featured in, his navbox is still there (Even if that also needs work) or, at worst, this article could be lightly merged into Luigi's article, so that way those interested in seeing Luigi's starring games can find them there. (Not my preferred outcome, but definitely an idea if people feel it worthwhile). Outside of the Luigi connection, these games don't really hold much water as a group, and a guy starring in a set of games does not make that subcategory of games separately notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we really claiming the Luigi games aren't a spinoff? Seriously? Nintendo even did a Year of Luigi promo which is currently a Good Article. While it's not as large a sub-series as Mario, trying to deny it exists boggles the mind and we certainly aren't hard-up for hard drive space that would necessitate folding it into the Mario series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cannot find sources indicating it exists under one banner, and outside of Luigi's Mansion, the only separate game series I can find relating to Luigi is Mario & Luigi, which is a separate series and not entirely focused on Luigi. As it currently stands, the list is just a miscellaneous assortment of games starring Luigi with no verification of the series' own separate notability. Compare this to something like Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games, which have multiple successful series that can be verified even with a quick Google search. You are right in saying that these games are spin-offs, but they aren't really tied together in a way that shows inherent notability bar happening to be associated with Luigi.

As a note, Year of Luigi doesn't really focus on the Luigi games as one series, with the games released under that year being variations of pre-existing games. Dr. Luigi is a spin-off of the Dr. Mario series, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team is a single entry of the wider Mario & Luigi series, and the various Luigi "remixes" are just variations of pre-existing games. There was a focus on games having Luigi in a starring role, but trying to say that immediately makes a random collection of games notable is like saying Shadow the Hedgehog has his own series because he's had big roles in several games and had a whole year dedicated to him as well. Luigi's Mansion is really the only one here that can be uniquely verified as part of a wider, notable branch of games. A list like this is the equivalent of attempting to make a "List of Pikachu games" and just lining it up with Pikachu's assortment of unrelated spin-off games that aren't branched under one umbrella (Games, for example, like Hey You, Pikachu! and Detective Pikachu (video game) focus on the character, but are not part of an umbrella franchise starring the character like characters like Yoshi and Wario are).

My problem with this list is not a matter of "trying to deny the Luigi games are spin-offs" or some bizarre thing like that, but rather that this list doesn't verify how the games featuring him are individually notable of the original Mario franchise, nor does it contain sourcing verifying the Luigi games as one major umbrella property like other notable Mario characters happen to have. This list is simply unverifiable. If you or anyone else can dig up sources noting these games are part of one whole umbrella, with notability and description inherently separate from the Year of Luigi or the Luigi character, then I'd be happy to withdraw since I just happened to miss stuff in my search. But right now as it stands, the list just lacks the things it needs to really meet guidelines and justify a split off any other article. I do hope this clears up my viewpoint a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but I see where the nom is coming from. Luigi is too interlinked with Mario (being his sidequick) to really rise to stand-alone Wario (series) or List of Yoshi video games status, but he's also further along than Princess Peach and Toad (Mario) (who both have several games named after them but no sub-franchise article). It seems Nintendo keeps pushing for a new stand-alone franchise, even if it's currently mostly Mansion. Since Mansion doesn't have an overarching series article yet (but could have) and instead hatnote-links to this list, I'd rather keep this list and see where Nintendo takes it, until we can decide how to best present the information. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, how List of Wario video games is featured and how it is different from Wario (series) doesn't make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is... bizarre. I didn't even know there were separate articles for both of these until now. There's a lot of content overlap there that should probably be merged, but that would require a heavy amount of editing and decision making to accomplish that's not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can see an argument for there not really being a Luigi series, maybe there's an argument to be made about repurposing it into a Luigi's Mansion series article instead, which is more of a concrete, actual series? Just a thought, currently undecided on what to do personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree that something like this might have potential (specifically the potential for a Luigi's Mansion series page), but I'm also agreeing with Pokelego's stance on how to handle this. It's hard to tell what exactly a "Luigi video game" is, and this list has nothing worth saving even in the event a Luigi's Mansion series article, or something on the lines of that, is created. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Luigi's game appearance are covered on Luigi#Appearances and I think the article is below WP standards as is. But considering the Mario franchise has similar lists like List of video games featuring Mario, I don't think the scope of this AfD can resolve anything. IgelRM (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That list very much feels like it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE given it's covering every time a video game happens to feature Mario, one of the most iconic characters of all time who is so frequently referenced and parodied that a list like this seems very useless in terms of use. It feels like it'd be better off rebranded to being a list of Mario franchise videogames, but that feels like a separate discussion that would take place outside of the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Agreed with the nom that there isn't a "Luigi series" and that this list presents original research issues in implying such a series exists apart from appearances of the character. The alternative to deletion is to redirect to the existing section on Luigi appearances, which is what a reader looking for this topic would be least astonished to arrive. czar 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It falls under WP:COMMONSENSE given that all the games both have Luigi in the title and star him as a main character. Original research is going out and confirming something that isn't obvious. We shouldn't be spending time debating whether grass is green or 1+1=2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these can't be verified as unified group, then it's just a collection of every game Luigi's happened to star in with no other real connecting thread. Yes, we can verify these games happen to star Luigi, but that's not really the point of this. The point is that this list simply is not verifiable as defining what a "Luigi video game" is, nor is it able to show why this subset of games is notable beyond happening to focus on Luigi. The collection of games themselves are not unified by a connecting thread like other Mario series articles, such as Yoshi or Wario, and no sources verify if they can be. This list simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If there is no "Luigi series" and this is a list of games featuring Luigi, then we should view it as a summary style split from Luigi#Appearances. I don't think the sourcing warrants the split. czar 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source has Miyamoto referring to the Year of Luigi titles as "Luigi games", which appears to show that their creator views them as a single group even outside the Luigi's Mansion series. That's confirmation enough for me, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no coverage on Luigi games as a group. Most sources that tie to them are tied to Year of Luigi and don't show the games as being independently notable outside of that event, and the fact the games exist does not immediately warrant an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is definitely notable even it does lean on the Mansion series. But overall, it is definitely helpful to readers including myself. Sackkid (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE,WP:ITSHELPFUL, and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Luigi's Mansion series, then delete - it seems to be the only notable series involved here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Czar and NegativeMP1; the Year of Luigi does not demonstrate the existence of a continuous, overarching group of "Luigi games". I find it difficult to believe that Luigi's Hammer Toss and New Super Luigi U are part of the same "series" or are even discussed in any significant capacity as part of the same well-defined group. ― novov (t c) 06:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An alternative to deletion is to really focus on Luigi's Mansion only because that is really a franchise. OceanHok (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lone lead character. It doesn't claim to be a "series", so I'm not sure why the nom thinks that should be relevant. There are plenty of articles that list related media together without them being an actual "series". Not all of the games in List of video games featuring Batman are a part of one series, for instance.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bring up the series argument to show how there is no real explicit reason why this list is notable. A list that consists of games that happen to have Luigi as the protagonist is an indiscriminate collection of information unless sources touch on it. The sources do not support separate notability, neither as a series of games, nor as a collection of games. Also, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have other articles on similar subjects does not mean this list is suddenly exempt from the standards of notability, as there are plenty of similar lists that don't meet standards running around. (I will note the Batman one is pretty low quality- like, it's using GameFAQs as a source, for example. I do feel there's potential grounds to improve that list given Batman itself is a franchise, and Batman has several notable game series, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that. Luigi's list doesn't have much of a hope of improvement bar Luigi's Mansion, which can just be split off from the rest should other editors decide that's beneficial for readers, per the above arguments on the list's contents.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "List of video games featuring X" is different from a "List of X video games". IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Agree that it is literally what it claims to be: a list of games where Luigi is the lead character. Jennysue61884 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi#Appearances. Was leaning keep until I saw that that exists. At this time, I agree with Czar's points made earlier about constituting original research. Maybe a Luigi's Mansion article could be created. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult brand

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

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Icon brand & Symbol-intensive brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is mostly OR and its topic is a sub-category of Symbol-intensive brand, above. If that article is kept, I could support a partial merge of this article with that one. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lifestyle brand. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all OR and other unsourced material. BoraVoro (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoraVoro: What will be left? Only a dictionary definition. WP:NOTDICT Polygnotus (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good question. I agree with NOTDICT guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seneb-Neb-Af

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

I can only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. ~~If there should be ATD, then redirect.~~ Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Egypt. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: mastaba is not an appropriate redirect target, as he is not mentioned there. It's clear that he's only notable as the person who was buried in his mastaba, though, so the AfD discussion here should centre on whether Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af is notable (we can rename the article after the AfD if so). -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for that, Asilvering. I think we should redirect this article somewhere for now since Mastaba of Seneb-Neb-Af hasn't been created yet. Is there any target you can think of? I wouldn't support renaming because the article is a mess; lacks sources and sufficient context. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mastaba is a generic term for a type of tomb. Redirecting there would make no sense. It could be mentioned at Dahshur#Tombs and cemeteries, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this target but how is it connected? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where the tomb of Seneb-Neb-Af is. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if having a tomb dedicated/made by/for someone establishes their notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. We know it belongs to him; it's got his name on it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, it's much better to respond to comments as a reply rather than rewriting your initial talk page comment. To reply to your new comment: XOR'easter is not making any kind of claim about Seneb-Neb-Af's notability. They're saying that the tomb could be mentioned in the article Dashur, since that's where the tomb is. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Danke. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear on my stance, I think the tomb could be mentioned there, but that it's not so important or well-reported (at this point) to be worth doing so. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, having looked into this a bit more, I don't think we should redirect this at all, since this is a very new finding that has only just been reported on in popular press. We don't even have a site report yet as far as I can tell? I don't think a mention is due on Dashur, and I don't think anyone searching for this name will be well-served by a redirect, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ink Awards

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

Non-notable award. References are all announcements of winners and the majority are unreliable, falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate significant coverage that talks about the reward itself. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move: It looks like these should be written as "RedInk Awards". I don't see WP:NEWSORGINDIA really applying here: These are awarded by the Mumbai Press Club, so any reporting is unlikely to be paid. Coverage of almost any journalism award is going to be a little iffy on independence due to sources written by journalists with personal and organisational interests, memberships, and possibly voting participation (although these ones are juried). If the Mumbai Press Club had an article -- and I'm not sure it should -- I'd be happy with a merge to section. In the absence of that ATD, because there is post-event reporting in national sources and the awards presenters have included a Chief Justice of India, a State Governor, a State Chief Minister, and a federal Minister (indicating a particular level of repute)[1][2][3][4][5], and it's reasonable for the awards to [continue to] be listed at recipients' articles and this list article facilitates interlinking, I'm landing on retention (possibly slight WP:IAR). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a good redirect as an WP:ATD but unfortunately one does not exists. "Press Trust of India" and "News Express Service" bylines fit the definition of NEWSORGINDIA 100% though. I am wondering which ones you feel do not fall under that criteria as I would be happy to go back and look (I may have missed something). I think it would be more of WP:ATA as opposed to WP:IAR. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FIFA Series

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

Don't need separate season article for this, as it's just a bunch of friendly matches without substantial coverage. The sources are mostly just match results rather than significant coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG independently from the general FIFA Series article I.e. sources about the history/creation are useful for GNG on the main FIFA Series article, but do not prove that an individual season article is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep? I don't know, there is enough there, maybe what I would call a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but a lot of sources around to digest, I've looked at a couple of them. But from what I see I have nothing against the article. Mine is a pretty weak keep mind you. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of it might be resultcruft - but some of it might be best merged to FIFA Series. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Argentina. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético de Madrid (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover a driver's signing, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clube de Regatas do Flamengo (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY, the only sources only cover a test session, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club Corinthians Paulista (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as besides WP:PRIMARY and a dead link, the only sources only cover an announcment of the first race, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla FC (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover a driver's signing and a race report, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Guoan (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team to help it to assert notability. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borussia Dortmund (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only sources only cover race reports, less about the team. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic

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

Basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Gaza humanitarian crisis.

More importantly, off all the given sources, only a single one (The National) uses the term "epidemic" in its own voice, with 2 more quoting the Gaza Health Ministry's declaration of an epidemic. RS hasn't been using the term epidemic (probably because as of now there haven't been any confirmed cases yet. There are strong fears of a coming epidemic, and polio has been found in the sewage, but thankfully no infections). At the very least the article needs to be considerably shortened, and name changed to "Polio discoveries" or something. Violates Crystal Ball. It's also not being (significantly) covered by RS on its own, but rather as part of the broader crisis. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Middle East. Hydromania (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaza humanitarian crisis - Wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article later if more sources begin to call the Polio issue an epidemic, but a redirect would suffice for right now. Jdcomix (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting the current title if the term "epidemic" is not being used by multiple reliable sources would violate WP:NDESC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. My first impression is that we should probably redirect. Now to read with care... Yeah, merge with Gaza humanitarian crisis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge. There are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage, so deleting it isn’t warranted. If kept, a move or rename to 2024 Gaza Strip polio outbreak or the like would be appropriate. I don’t oppose the merger, however the main article could get filled with a lot of more important and less important trivia; see what happened at one time to Palestinian law. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - and expand. Could be broadened to "infectious diseases outbreaks" instead of just polio, but it warrants its own coverage separate from starvation and other issues. FourPi (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R.S.C. Anderlecht (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Midtjylland (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting CP (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing and the other is now dead. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There maybe enough for some basic form of WP:GNG pass, I found sources, [6] (primary source), [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (primary) , [12], [13], this one has a few hits on britsonpole.com which might be useful. [14], [15], [16]. Need I go on, there are a lot of hits to digest. There are more online, what kind of WP:BEFORE did you do? Besides, you talk a load of codswallop, I looked at your nominations just now, and the work load you did. It's nothing short than just, I don't like this shit so I am going to nominate all these articles for AfD. I don't disagree there are problems with these articles, but your process and this nomination, and the rest you've done. Well, you should be reported to WP:ANI for the process. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off all WP:PRIMARY do not count for notability, thus are all ignored. Reviewing them, this is what I say in WP:RS
- [17] - about the series, which gives more weight for the series, not the team
- [18] - about the partnership between F1 and the eponymous football team, the 'team' has pitiful amount of coverage to it. A regurgitation of article provided below.
- [19] - again WP:PRIMARY - do not count for notability.
- [20] - same as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- [21] - primarily about the series, far less about the series
- [22] - as above, another regurgitation of press releases
- britsonpole.com - same I mentioned below
- [23] is another WP:ROUTINE announcement that a team is retaining a driver for another season, does it assert notability for the team? The operating team is notable, no doubt.
- [24] - another announcement, dubious source. More like a site run by hobbyists/student journalist. Very little weight for WP:RS.
- [25] is about the 2010 season with a tiny bit to promote the races as usual as you would expect in local papers. Not much about the 'teams'
This may help pass in 2010 but this is 2024, so none of these will support the notability of the teams nominated or provide WP:SIGCOV. Given your language here, I shall recommend you to wash your mouth every morning and night with a toilet brush to get rid of those foul language that stains your vocabulary. That way, you could be better than those clowns who congregate at pubs every Saturday afternoon and get drunk till May. BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure I want to reply to you, but you do know there is nothing wrong with primary sources in an article, primary can be used to back up basic facts. You can use primary and secondary sources together to show a notable point. That is a point about facts matching each other. I honestly don't know why so many people forget this. You can break down the sources I provided all you like, I am just showing there are sources that can be used and some basic form that could pass, at what point did I say keep on the comment above, if I truly want an article to be kept, I would put keep in bold at the beginning and not comment! Govvy (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kyrgyzstan, London

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Zero secondary sources. Only source provided is government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kyrgyzstan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AS Roma (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources provided do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Hungary, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article charts the significant history of the British Embassy in Budapest, the sources highlight its notability and link with the evacuation of Jews during the holocaust. AusLondoner is on a mindless campaign to delete all embassy pages. Cantab12 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As such it should be kept. Cantab12 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish consul rented space in a bank and declared it diplomatic premises to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. How is this related to the British embassy? AusLondonder (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSV Eindhoven (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Porto (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympique Lyonnais (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as the only source only cover an announcement to a driver's signing. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girondins de Bordeaux (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Basel 1893 (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain (Superleague Formula team)

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China (Superleague Formula team)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating it's significance are pretty thin.

Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, are non-existent. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the team operating it. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Frozen Fourteen

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

Trivia without reliable independent sources about it. While it is mentioned in passing on some websites, it hasn't received significant attention, it doesn't eve seem to be mentioned in any books[26]. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Billboard Hot 100 as an ATD, since it appears verifiable, if not notable. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too insignifant detail to be merged to the main Billboard Hot 100 article: if people feel it should be mentioned somewhere, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones would be a better place. Fram (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. Appears to have been invented in a forum thread, never acknowledged by WP:RS. Mach61 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. CptViraj (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't make articles on projects that are merely "envisioned". Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Decker

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability. I could find limited sources with a Google search to satisfy the inline citations template. Therefore probably fails WP:GNG. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The "Willy Decker" in this AfD is a completely different one from the one that was the subject of the first AfD. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 02:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who directed a Henze opera world premiere and is listed in Who's Who? is notable. I have no time to look today but will next week unless this is closed by then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistings. More opinions would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference, per what I said before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[27] [28] [29] [30] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Christie

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A search yields much more hits for someone who appeared on Geordie Shore who may indeed be more notable, so for that reason I oppose redirect of this cricketer's article. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmam Engey

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

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Ashkenazi Jews

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

I believe this page should be deleted due to no encyclopedic value and numerous WP:BLP and Original Research violations that make rescuing this page impossible. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further arguments:

Overly Broad and Non Educational: Approximately 40% of Israel's population could be included in this list, making it excessively broad (by the way, note that in modern times many people are second or third generation mixed Ashkenazi/Mizrahi origins which further increases the percentage of people that can be included). Israeli Jews can be much better classified by specific country of origin (and indeed we have such categories). Furthermore broadly categorizing random, secular individuals based on their supposed ethnic origin reduces people's identities to simplistic binary labels that offer no value. For example, the fact that Gilad Shalit is Ashkenazi is completely meaningless.
Vague classification: Jewish identities, particularly in Israel, do not always fit neatly into categories like Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, or Sephardi. These labels are tied to religious traditions that go back hundreds of years and do not necessarily correspond to specific countries of origin. For example, a person of Georgian Jewish descent could be either Ashkenazi or non-Ashkenazi, not to mention the many people that have a mixed heritage.
Inaccurate and Original Research : The vast majority of non-observant Jews on this list do not have reliable sources confirming their classification as Ashkenazi. For many individuals, there is no direct citation that verifies their inclusion in this category. Attempting to infer whether a person is Ashkenazi based on their last name, or even their parent's country of origin constitutes original research. Not to mention that many of the inferences are plain wrong, such as in the cases of Mili Avital and Zefania Carmel. This is also a major BLP violation which alone should result in deleting most of the people on the list.
Offensive and Bordering on Racist: Classifying individuals, particularly secular Jews, and Jews of mixed heritage, as Ashkenazi or Mizrahi/Sephardi without their self-identification can be seen as offensive. The page risks causing harm by labeling people in ways that they may not identify with.

For these reasons, this page is harmful, does not serve a meaningful purpose and should be deleted. Whizkin (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Whizkin (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCHD-CA

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAH-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Themes common in gay porn

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_4#Themes common in gay porn. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. C F A 💬 03:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was of questionable value, leading to this discussion. So delete if this is not a useful search term. Do *NOT* merge. Typical porn site category list, sourced to a porn site. No independent RS interest found in search. Encyclopedic content already covered by gay pornography. • Gene93k (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a glossary of terms used in pornography, so 'rename and broaden to glossary of pornography (or a similar title) to match the content (many entries are not exclusive to gay porn). Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BizTalkRadio

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

Subject does not contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Business. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't not know why this is up for deletion but I vote keep (03:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKRR-LP

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks noble subject (KmTvFan me (talk to me 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago

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

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge into the main Otago article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into the article for Otago. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Otago not enough notability nor enough content for a stand alone article for this. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yudong

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

I can’t see any in depth coverage in RIS to indicate that this subject is notable. There may be sources in Chinese I didn’t manage to turn up - if not this article should go. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and China. Mccapra (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been finding Chinese language sources for this subject, who seems to be a pretty famous director. I haven't yet found any RS that demonstrate individual notability, but I'll look again later today and report my findings or not findings as applicable. Our article is longer than his Baidu page, which seems kinda sus. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found:
1. Wang, Xiaoye 王小野 (2021-02-18). ""数字文创展——来自四维空间的线圈世界"展览开幕：用科技与艺术传递光与爱" ["Digital Cultural and Creative Exhibition - Coil World from Four-Dimensional Space" Exhibition Opens: Delivering Light and Love with Technology and Art]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
  The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "中央新影集团著名导演朱昱东". From Google Translate: "Zhu Yudong, a famous director from China Film Group"
2. "电影《海霞》要拍续集了" [The movie "Haixia" is going to have a sequel]. Wenzhou Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2012-08-30. p. 文娱 14.
  The article notes: "月中旬到10月初开拍。执导此部电影的总导演为中央电视台副台长、中央新影集团总裁高峰。导演为中央电视台科教节目制作中心导演朱昱东，他的电影剧本《达西的季节》、《他们》曾分别获得国家广播电影电视总局夏衍杯剧本奖、中国台湾“行政院新闻局”优良剧本征选大"
  From Google Translate: "...Filming will start from mid-October to early October. The chief director of this movie is Gao Feng, deputy director of CCTV and president of China Film Group. The director is Zhu Yudong, director of CCTV's Science and Education Program Production Center. His movie scripts "Darcy's Season" and "They" have won the Xia Yan Cup Script Award of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television and the Excellent Script Selection Competition of the "Executive Yuan News Bureau" of Taiwan, China..."
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted in December 2010 after a sparsely attended discussion at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2021/12/04#朱昱东. The sources I found suggest Zhu Yudong is notable but are not by themselves enough for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. If more sources cannot be found, I would recommend delete. I hope more sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking into this. Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chi-won (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traumnovelle (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bids for the 2040 Summer Olympics

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

Article was created despite there being a declined draft at Draft:Bids for 2040 Summer Olympics. Also, the bidding process for the 2040 Summer Olympics has not even started yet, so this is still WP:TOOSOON. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content then delete Metalhead11000 (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or selectively merge to the draft. Far too soon for an article. C F A 💬 02:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge usable content into the draft then delete. I brought up the fact that the 2040 Olympics are over a decade and a half away on the talk page just before, and bidding likely won't start until sometime around 2026, so definitely too soon. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a site for speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bids for the Olympic Games. StanSpencer (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Karkera

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume/cv material. Nothing near even 1 GNG source. This closest thing to even 1 GNG source is an interview (reference #5 circa August 15th). Tagge by others for wp:notability since February. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find a bunch of PR items in my search, nothing about this fellow in RS. Sourcing now in the article is about patents and various funding announcements, neither of which help prove notability. Not meeting BLP requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, India, and California. C F A 💬 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

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

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.
Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Trey

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

Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.

"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.

For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Missouri. Star Mississippi 01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[31] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never nominated anything before. J2009j (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. Star Mississippi 01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.

Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable source.

Source 19 - is an interview again and it does not establish notability. It is what a person says about themselves. J2009j (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [32], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asked by the admin a few comments above to review sources: the ECB is a government body, usually considered a primary source, then we have the company's own website, which is also primary... The only decent sourcing in the article is Source 2, where a peer-reviewed journal uses data from the company to analyze things (which is fine I suppose, it's not directly about the company however). None of the sources presented are helpful and most aren't even useful for the various reasons listed in this comment. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to comment on the remainder of the sources given above: a trade register and linkedin, neither of which are acceptable for proving notability. I'm afraid none of the new sources presented can be helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are reliably documented, and the list is too long to be in one article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT. This isn't a valid keep argument and doesn't address the concern that this essentially just a massive database copy/dump. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:COPYVIO I have to agree with Fram: making an inferior copy of someone else's database is really not within our purview. There's probably some WP:NOT guideline covering that aspect, but the fact that it is a copy of only some of the fields doesn't ameliorate that it is a comprehensive copy of every entry. And without that copying there's really nothing here, as it is the sole source for it would appear well over 90% of the entries. I have to think that it's not possible to source this otherwise without repeating the other author's original research. I wouldn't have a problem with the obviously much smaller list of surviving mills, for which the copied database could be used as a source for certain information. But in this case we are just stealing someone else's work, even if we aren't stealing all of it and that theft was not the intent. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contest the claim of copyvio. As for the one source claim, the DHM database itself draws on many sources. Thus the lists draw on many sources too. For info, the Dutch Wikipedia lists cover all windmills, though they have split by existing and "vanished" mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but even though I agree with not retaining a copy of the database, facts aren't copyrightable, only the presentation of those facts. Still though, what's essentially a copy is still essentially a copy, and not something we should be hosting. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further discussion and contribution from other editors to reach a clear consensus. Would encourage editors to consider neutral notices at neutral venues to seek further input, if they feel it is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it meets WP:NLIST it still goes against what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. A list of every single windmill in the Netherlands that is just a copy of a database is not within the scope of the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]