Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 November 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

< November 10	November 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Longwood Crossing, Indiana

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

The references say this was a post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't that how settlements were established back in the day? Having a post office established usually gave more credibility. Obviously not a good argument today for WP:GEO but might explain why the article was created. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Most formal settlements in that era were "platted", that is, someone laid out lots and streets and got people to settle there. These have a characteristic grid pattern which appears all over the midwest. Post offices popped up in response to the need for people to come and get their mail, and they were placed pretty much anywhere: stores, railroad stations (as a rule), and even peoples' homes. The further west one goes, the more likely they were to be isolated, and the4y often moved when the postmaster changed. If you look particularly in Indiana there are a lot of post offices which have short lifespans at the end of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th, when RFD made them superfluous. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Watch Company

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

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yab Moung Records

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would earn any sort of "a high enough volume of shorter sources can still satisfy GNG" pass, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
As it may have better sourcing in Khmer that I'm not linguistically equipped to find, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Khmer is able to find more coverage in that language than I've found in English, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalgeschichte/Global History

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

Article "PRODded" with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON." Article dePRODded by its creator with reason "Hello, the journal is indeed very new. In my opinion, however, it deserves attention on Wikipedia because of its concept of bilingualism, which sets it apart from its purely German predecessor journal. English-speaking authors who might want to publish their research findings in ‘Globalgeschichte/Global History’ can quickly get an idea of the journal. For example, five out of seven articles in Volume 1 are in English," while adding a reference to an English-language article from the journal as example. None of this answers to the PROD concern, which therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social utility efficiency

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency

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

The definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
- Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
  - Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
- "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
  - Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
- Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
- Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
  - "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
- Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
  - "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
- Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
  - "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
- "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
- "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
  - "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
- "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
  - "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
- "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
  - "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
- "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
  - "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
- "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
  - "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
- "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
  - "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
- "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
  - "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
- "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
  - "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
- "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
- "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
  - "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
- "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
- "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
- "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
  - "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
- "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
  - "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
- "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
  - "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
- "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
  - "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
- Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
  - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22social+utility+efficiency%22
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voter+satisfaction+efficiency%22&tbm=bks
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bayesian+regret%22+voting+method&tbm=bks — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret

2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.

I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE

2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.

3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric

I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911

and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.

There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).

If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.

Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.

Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).

But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,

it is not used in the literature.

> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules

no it is not. it is about SUE.

can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Hunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neon Hunk

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

I believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([1]) and an AllMusic review ([2]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [3], Dusted Magazine [4], Suburban Voice [5] and this more trivial output: [6] and this one: [7] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Panda Fighter

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

I do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.

This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient coverage for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources on the page+https://www.topito.com/top-plagiats-dessins-animes https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-2000s-ranked-letterboxd/ https://collider.com/animated-movies-2000s-worst-ranked/ and even https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-letterboxd/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26648/7-hollywood-ripoffs-titles-and-posters-and-plots-you-wont-believe + https://www.avclub.com/don-t-look-directly-at-these-horrifying-children-s-movi-1798257240 + https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160410042024/http://news.nster.com/1079-funny-and-ridiculous-rip-offs-of-famous-movies.html At the very least a redirect to List of Brazilian films of 2008 or to List of animated feature films of 2008 or to the 'original' film seems warranted in my humble opinion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you have every right to, I'm merely stating my case as to why deletion is correct. We'll see what the consensus is. CoconutOctopus talk 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should a Redirect be the path chosen Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography might be the best target.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [8]. Molecular Pilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:

How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!
(MentalFloss)

The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.
(Collider A)

A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.
(Collider B)

The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.
(Collider C)

This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..
(NSTER, Archived)

I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran McNulty

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

Academic anthropologist who has moved to a secondary level administrative position. He does not have a substantial publication record, no major awards (only local ones). No major coverage, so does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford High School shooting

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

Sadly, incidents like school shootings aren't that uncommon, we simply can't document every single one on Wikipedia. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydes

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

No WP:SIGCOV in RS. Recent coverage is in non-RS, e.g. WP:SPORTSKEEDA and no-byline content mills like The Express Tribune. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SINGER, non-notable per WP:CRIM. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 15:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)

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

This page only disambiguates between two articles which is easily delt with by HAT notes on those articles. Other articles listed under see also have no relevance to the DAB and just pad the page out to make it look like it should exist. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for disambiguation between only two topics. Talk page discussions at the associated articles have repeatedly reached consensus that the term just needs to redirect to the primary topic (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) and those few that were looking for Marxist cultural analysis will find it via the hatnote. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrOllie and OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desserts (film)

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- however, the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt a film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a BEFORE been performed?? No. " His first short film, Desserts, won the Silver Bear at the 1999 Berlin Film Festival." (https://www.torinofilmfest.org/en/17-torino-film-festival/film/desserts/684/) Plus multiple results on GBooks. Unsourced articles need sources not deletion. Willing to improve this later. (https://www.sansebastianhorrorfestival.eus/1999/ing/desserts.htm http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/desserts for verification) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a BEFORE most certainly was performed.

Secondly, the source for any film award win has to be journalistic reportage about the award presentation in media, not film festival catalogues. An award has to itself be notable (i.e. pass WP:GNG) before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so the award has to be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to constitute a notability claim, and a film cannot be notable for winning an award that you have to source to promotional content on the self-published website of a film festival in lieu of proper media coverage about said award.

Thirdly, the sourcing for thing else about the film also has to be coverage about the film in media, not the self-published catalogues of film festivals or directory entries. Films always have to be shown to pass WP:GNG regardless of what notability claims are attempted, no notability claim is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt a film from having to be referenced to GNG-worthy sourcing, and film festival catalogues and directory entries are not GNG-worthy sourcing. GNG requires journalistic coverage about the film in media, not indiscriminate-inclusion directory entries and directly affiliated promotional sources. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! So you performed a BEFORE but you failed to mention the short had WON a Silver Bear in your not-so-short rationale? (:D) Sure. You probably forgot that tiny detail. But I'll assume good faith. As for the rest, no. Coverage in books (see page, where one of the sources for the award is a BOOK: can you check it again -since you probably had seen it in your BEFORE?-) and any reliable source are OK for verification. The film has won a notable award at one the most prestigious film festivals in the history of cinema, it can therefore be considered notable. And that is just one reason to keep it. Also, self-published is generally not used with the meaning you seem to think it has; the links are to OFFICIAL websites of notable film festvals, they cannot be described as "self-published catalogues". I don't know what "sourcing for thing else" means. Anything? Sure. Again, not only "media" coverage counts. Just read the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be interesting to compare the reply to my !vote, by the nominator, with that comment by the same user, at another AfD (where they were in favour of retaining the page....) it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)} (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cluer) Do different standards apply to BLPs of (Canadian) filmmakers? Sourced nominations/collective wins at certainly notable Canadian awards imply "inherent notability" (emphasis not mine) in certain cases but films winning extremely notable awards at international festivals, although sourced with various references, should not be considered notable? -despite W:NFILM stating they can be considered notable if they win a major award-. Food for thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:BEFORE only requires me to scan the results of a search to determine whether there are reliable and WP:GNG-worthy sources available in the pool, and does not require me to manually investigate each link to determine whether there's a hidden potential notability claim — at the time of nomination, the article did not say that there were any awards involved, so it is not my responsibility to have discovered that. BEFORE only requires me to determine whether reliable or GNG-worthy sources are available to salvage the article with, and does not require me to do the salvaging myself.

Secondly, you know what else isn't GNG-worthy support for notability either? Ebooks self-published by their own writers through print-on-demand houses.

And there's no conflict between what I'm saying here and what I said at Sebastian Cluer, either: the difference hinges on reliable sourcing. Sebastian Cluer's Canadian Screen Award nominations and wins were properly sourced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reported the CSA nominees and winners as news, which means I applied the same standards to both topics and said absolutely nothing different there than here. The argument there wasn't that he was exempted from having to have any sourcing because of the award claims, the argument was about whether or not we needed to also find biographical sourcing about him in addition to the properly sourced award claims, which isn't the same thing at all.

By far the majority of winners of the Silver Bear for Best Short Film do not have Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by simply looking at that article. It's not that they can't have articles, obviously, but properly sourcing articles about short films is frequently harder than properly sourcing articles about feature films is, and the films are not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because there's an award involved — even a film with an award-related notability claim still has to be properly sourced. So most of the films in that list don't have articles, because it's a lot harder to find GNG-worthy sourcing that properly supports articles about short films. And again, that's not different from Sebastian Cluer at all, as his award-related notability claim was properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who wrote "The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)." but the Silver Bear win for the present short is now sourced with at least 4 reliable sources. Properly sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not substantially edit your comments once they have been replied to. It can be at best very confusing. Please kindly remove the added text and insert it below if you wish, per Wikipedia:REDACTED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ewan McGregor. I've searched and cannot find reliable secondary-source coverage of the film's Silver Bear win (setting aside the question of whether the Silver Bear is a "major" award). There's one scholarly treatment that Mushy Yank has added to the article, but I can't find any other evidence of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. However, I'd suggest a redirect as an appropriate AtD that will preserve the page history should more coverage be turned up in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a redirect due to sourcing concerns, which I still think remain, but Mushy Yank raised a valid question and more eyes don't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll respond to Mushy Yank's concerns here and elaborate on my !vote: I don't dispute that this film won the Silver Bear; I just can't validate it from the sources Mushy supplied. (They are all Google Books entries that only allow a snippet view and the snippets visible do not validate the Silver Bear.) Looking at the list of Silver Bear winners, I also don't know that the Silver Bear is a major award that automatically qualifies a film as notable under WP:NFILM. Mushy Yank thinks it is; Bearcat thinks it isn't; I don't know either way, and without that criterion, we need more independent coverage and reviews. I think a redirect is a valid AtD that preserves the history until sources that can be validated or additional reviews are turned up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Shores, Indiana

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

Aerials from the 1950s show this to be a suburban development around a lake, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Housing developments are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. No results in Google News. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As mentioned in the previous AfD, the album appeared on various European charts and search results at Google Books indicate some notability. They could be called passing mentions: [9], [10], [11], [12]. But there are "snippet views" from DRUM magazine, The Big Issue, Paris Match, Tjednik (Croatian magazine) that are not fully viewable, and could be significant coverage. I think this is very likely a notable subject and sources are just locked in physical media. If the article is decided to be deleted, as an alternative to deletion a redirect to Prince Igor (song) would be appropriate. --Mika1h (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacyn Heavens

Junaid Ahmad

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

Nothing important, a (Personal attack removed) clerk at the so-called World bank. Niocvixcito (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is randomly nominating articles in a way that is a possible act of vandalism using vulgar language. Action needs to be taken immediately. Mekomo (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed the personal attack. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs updating/expansion, from [13][14] and [15], for example, but their is enough coverage in reliable sources for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Díekolade

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

No evidence of notability for this name. Fram (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar Street (album)

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

Reference is an opinion piece and there aren't other sources for this album, the band's article itself is barely referenced and seems to be taken from a no longer active website. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revive (band). Some of this band's other albums received multiple pro reviews in Christian Rock publications like Jesus Freak Hideout and Cross Rhythms. I can find no dedicated reviews for this album and it is only briefly mentioned in the magazine article that is used as a source. However, that is not merely an "opinion" piece as said by the nominator. There are also possibiities for improving the band's article, the current state of which is not relevant for this album-only discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some improvements to the band's article. See WP:NEXIST on how to not condemn an article after looking at it just briefly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Revive (band). No prejudice on the nominator for not spending a lifetime perusing and/or improving the Revive (band) article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Malaysia

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

Whole list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOR. Only one cinema has an article and most entries listed are cinema chains with cinemas attached to shopping malls. All references appear to links to the cinema's official website. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Malaysia, and Companies. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems a perfectly standard topic for a list. Meets WP:NLIST as the topic has been the subject of coverage as a set (see Lee, A. Y. B. (2022), Malaysian Cinema in the New Millennium: Transcendence Beyond Multiculturalism. Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, p. 1, for a start, please) but WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Mushy Yank (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing remarkably informational or navigational about this list. It's a directory of run-of-the-mill movie cinemas. The only sources are official websites to the cinema franchises. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing remarkably informational or navigational (emphasis mine) or nothing informational or navigational? Because if it the first, it's a highly subjective comment. Indeed, in my opinion, it helps navigate in the category and articles about cinema theatres in the world and offers informations about cinema in Malaysia that could seem of use. Did you open the book I mentioned, by any chance? Cleanup (sources, cuts) may be done later and is probably needed, yes. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference anywhere in the book that makes a list of run of the mill cinema chains in a particular country notable? The only other list of cinema articles similar to this list at least have a range of notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understood your question: but read p. 1, yes. Mushy Yank (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obviously unencyclodedic topic, even ignoring WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not a list of extraordinary or interesting things, just branches of chains. We have "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" as an example in WP:NOTDIR and this list has us pretty squarely there! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mary

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

It has been in the NPP for a very long time. Unable to find sufficient significant coverage, fails WP:ORG. - The9Man ^Talk 11:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - cursory source for sources - Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Law360, Financial Times, Independent, The Times, The Guardian, Birmingham Mail, The Grocer. Bristol Post. New York Times, TheJournal.ie, Wired starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I ended up with were just mentions. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to improve the article.- The9Man ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, thank you. I created the Lost Mary article because the brand is ubiquitous in the UK. The area behind the till in every corner shop is covered in Lost Mary products. I was looking for information and couldn't believe there wasn't a Wikipedia article about it. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia but I can contribute a photograph of an electronic cigarettes display showing the Lost Mary products, if this helps. Jfclemay (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfclemay, Thank you for your contribution! Wikipedia articles require coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You can read the guidelines here - WP:ORGCRIT. If you have sources such as news articles, industry publications, or other reputable coverage about the brand, adding those could strengthen the article. Additionally, photographs can be valuable, just be sure that any images you upload are your own work or that you have the proper permissions.

@Thanks again for your efforts! - The9Man ^Talk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources above are all dicdefs for 'passing mention' as far as Lost Mary is concerned, listed in each as one of a number of 'brands of concern' and introduced typically with 'such as...' - Elf Bar might make the grade on coverage, albeit for all the wrong reasons. But Lost Mary is one of a large number of brands the company makes and does not merit an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eita Kasagawa

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

Deleted before. Career consisting of 472 minutes play time. No sources (including ja:wiki) to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he apparently played in only 12 professional football matches in total and not in any major teams. Not prominent. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Kai-jie

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

Having international caps for a country with no impact on the sport at large, is no longer a free pass with regards to notability. With a handful of caps and a very short club career, this would need substantial sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched news articles for him and only found one article. Does not appear to have played many professional games. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quest It (Service Marketplace)

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

article does not meet the notability guidelines for companies, it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Most references come from local and affiliated sources with limited in-depth coverage and content mainly highlights local achievements without significant impact. Nxcrypto Message 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Alan Peterson

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Uses Ballotpedia almost entirely as a singular source, and what information isn't sourced to it uses thegreenpapers.com, which appears to be no more useful in providing notability than Ballotpedia. Google returns no news articles, sans a couple providing voting results (although I can't even find him on these) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. The sources used are not reliable to pass notability guidelines. Search result failed to turn up any useful failing WP:GNG. A mere announcement of a presidential run does not bring notability by default. Mekomo (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet up Artiste notability guide as stated above, weavil words and promotional statements are flying around the article too. Tesleemah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza in Croatia

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

Complete trivia. Nothing encyclopedic in here. Every country eats and serves pizza. We don't need a series of pages around the whole world of "Pizza in x". Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:TNT grounds. I do think it would be possible to write a GNG-qualifying article on pizza in Croatia using Croatian sources (see [16]), but this article is so far away from that there's no content at all to save. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete In Laurel, Maryland, there is a restaurant which is an Italian/Indian/Nepali dusion: you can get a chicken tikka calzone there. Pizza is one of the most universal of cuisines now, and this article makes no real attempt to suggest that there's something special about how the Croatians do it. Between GNG and TNT this thing needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. We don't need Hamburgers in Hungary or Curry in Colombia, however much they like 'em, for the same reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chaotic characters

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

Could not find sources on the characters nor the list as a whole. There is some content that can be merged with Chaotic (TV series), but a lot of it is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim appropriately. The subject of the list is Chaotic (TV series), so notability is not in question, except by editors who dispute the first half of the statement. Nothing stops you from cleaning up plot summary now, which will need to happen in any event. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the appropriate trimming suggestion that was brought up by @Jclemens:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT are failed by this list, since it is totally unreferenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Totally unreferenced and fails WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so everyone is aware, I agree that Chaotic (TV series) is notable. The characters themselves do not have notability on their own or as part of a list, hence the AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The main characters are already covered on the main article for the series, and due to the lack of sourcing and the fact that the characters listed here aside from the main characters are all completely minor characters that should not be listed here, appropriate trimming would essentially mean that a separate list would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but the consensus is leaning towards Deletion right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This unsourced list is largely WP:PLOT, and I agree that it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Chaotic (TV series) article is enough to cover the series. In fact, some of the content can be merged with that article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Myong-jun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#North Korea as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Bits around and more on the web to digest, I found little bits with [17], [18], youtube, [19]. There appears to be more sources around on the internet about him which I can't be bothered to go through. The nature of his career shows there was interest in him and some reporters have picked up on that and reported it. You just need to go looking, an extensive WP:BEFORE hasn't been done here in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that information about these North Korean players is almost impossible, here at least we have something. I'm going to withdraw my vote, I don't know if it's enough for WP:SIGCOV, but let's expand the discussion. Svartner (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four sources, only the first seems to be decent. Source #2 is primary, Source #3 is against WP:LINKSTOAVOID, while Source #4 is a brief mention in match report. None of them pass WP:GNG in my opinion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reply to Govvy and Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Svartner:, I found [20], [21], and [22] among other sources which is decent for a North Korena player. Definitelyy has offline North Korean sources too. One of few North Korean players to have played professionally for a few European clubsm and has 5 goals in 9 games for the national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? The nationality of the player isn't relevant and then also speculating about the apparent existence of offline sources. Simione001 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people often say good sources for a North Korean footballer like the bar is lower for some reason? – do you understand the situation of media in North Korea? Do you realize that they don't have real media? Why should they be treated with the same strictness as those from countries with extensive media? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001 I think you do a good job filtering these articles from North Korean players since the majority are in fact unable to be kept. But it is valid when something comes up to establish the minimum coverage. There is a little more tolerance throughout the context of the country's regime, where there is no independent media. Svartner (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could we get an assessment of the recently found sources? Unfortunately, we have the same guidelines for notability regardless a subject's nationality. The rules can bent but that would involve you persuading other editor's to your assessment of suitability of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [23], and some analysis here [24] and here [25]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [26], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [27]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Hamar

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

Declined prod. Could not find any sources in google news and google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. I would reconsider if there is anything in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halonen Cave

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG, and the sources listed in the article don't indicate why it is notable. They simple prove that it does exist. One of them is also a passing mention when ran through google translate. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoo Chang-kil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. His Korean Wikipedia article is also a stub. Could not find news articles on him. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Budd

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

There are dozens of sources but very few that are secondary and independent or any kind of significant coverage. Most of it is primary stuff and brief mentions. I believe the only case for notability could be his role as a cofounder of the Africa Express project, but that seems too weak to me. Ynsfial (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Music, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article seems completely fine for EnWiki. It's a little barren, yeah, and I didn't spend too much time looking through it, but I still think that it should be kept.

Aknip (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Speedy delete G5 - creation by a banned user Donald Albury 12:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Coal Fired Pizza

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

Apparent WP:UPE article created by block-evading sockpuppet and moved into mainspace by another block-evading sockpuppet. Additionally, the article's subject appears to fail WP:AUD inasmuch as the sources are all quite local. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Florida. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5: Looking at the page history and related SPIs, the article creator and mover are under the same sockmaster who was indeffed back in May 2023. Left guide (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with Left guide about the speedy option, but even it weren't, the article does not meet WP:NCORP. Conyo14 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [28] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [29] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [30] recital
4. [31] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Amalekites

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

WP:POVFORK of Amalek. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 01:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid RFC: I moved Amalek to Genocide of the Amalekites as the Amaleks appear nowhere else in the Bible and the events are near-unanimously considered to be genocide. (Even by evangelical Christians.) This should have been contested through a revert and then me filing a contested move request. The description given above does not accurately describe the context. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can open a move request but what you actually did was revert a redirect into an article[32] Andre🚐 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep ? Zero rationale given for why it should be deleted. Is this some sort of error? I'm assuming a rationale will be forthcoming?Moxy🍁 02:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I just said it's a WP:POVFORK of Amalek. It's basically a duplicated rewrite of that article with a bunch of POV changes. Andre🚐 02:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Amalekites have no notability outside of the genocide. (Even conservative evangelicals such as The Gospel Coalition call it such.) OntologicalTree (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. And that's not an argument to keep the fork. Andre🚐 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Amalek that the article creator started after a series of unacceptable behaviors. Longhornsg (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As already mentioned, this is just a POV fork of Amalek. Qualiesin (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoran University of Health Sciences

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

Non-notable education business. Most sources are discussion of naturopathy itself, don't mention the article topic, the other three are PRs or the institution's own website. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into a new article "Naturopathic schools in the US". I generally agree with Jdcooper's comments but question whether the conclusion is to delete. I tried to improve this article after discovering that it was substantially written by an employee. Despite database searches, I could find little independent and reliable coverage. Sonoran is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. A recent investigation found that its "medical" graduates had the 4th highest debt to earnings ratios among graduate programs in the US. According to tax filings, Sonoran had $20 million of revenues in FY2023. This seems pretty significant, so I don't think a complete deletion is warranted. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Significant, independent coverage does not seem to exist. When the name of the university comes up it is only in brief mentions in articles discussing naturopathic issues at large (example). A merge can't take place if the target article doesn't exist yet; creating it would likely end up with the same issues this article has until other naturopathy schools are identified and added to it, and we would end up with an article that takes a bunch of non-notable information and collates it under a topic that might be notable. NUNM has similar issues, but is discussed more in depth by sources; revenues can be an indicator of notability but it is not coming up in the sources. Recon rabbit 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 17:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging into a new article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Indiana earthquake

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

Fails WP:GNG, no lasting impact. Dozens of similarly-sized earthquakes occur in the Midwest and Eastern seaboard every year, we don't need an article documenting these if they don't have any noteworthy consequences. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable. Perhaps there is a list article it can be pointed or merged to. 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. List of earthquakes in 2010 and List of earthquakes in the United States don't go down as far as magnitude 3.8. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojan language

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

This should be redirected to Kambojas. As far as I am aware when I rewrote Kambojas, we barely have enough info for the people, let alone their obscure language. This article doesn't give any valuable info that isn't already mentioned in the more well sourced Kambojas#Language and location. This article also had several poor quality citations, which I've removed. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Urbano

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

Fails WP:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, only one primary source which contains basic biographical info. MSportWiki (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Portugal, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Monitoring and Management

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

This is a module in a chemistry course, and does not need a Wikipedia page. Even if there are multiple reliable and independent sources talking about this module, that content can go in the main page for the Higher School Certificate thing. Searched and could not find any sources for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find online study resources and WP mirrors mentioning this subject, but nothing else. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this Chemistry course for secondary school students passes WP:GNG. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lim

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

Fails WP:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, completely unsourced. MSportWiki (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Malaysia, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed, fails WP:BIO

Aknip (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.

An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.

"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.

Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I am obviously talking about Grant Heslov when I mention the film is an important part in their career (not Clooney or Aniston.... See the two LA Times articles, one by Mary McNamara, a Pulitzer Prize winner.) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator, I am getting only brief mentions. The most that I could find was the nice but short paragraph in the Pratt DVD book. Unfortunately the other books that are listed as sources in G-Books are ones with no preview, and a web search turns up IMDB and various user-created film sites. There is a source only for one of the awards. As for Clooney and Aniston, their roles (listed in the Pratt paragraph as cameos) aren't enough to make this short film significant. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Pratt DVD book, I found a newspaper article about the film in the Palm Beach Daily News. It's fairly brief, but detailed and entirely about the film. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrionix

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

Fails WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementechiton

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

Lack of references Zoe Aria (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I guess. It's in ZooBank] (and consequently GBIF). Mark McMenamin is a well-published Professor of Geology, so no prima facie quibbles from that direction either. No one except the describer appears to have referred to it in print, ever [33], but eh :/ Article needs a couple actual sources, obviously, and that "reconstruction" needs to be junked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been discussed. Delete following arguments made in discussion linked below. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Precambrian_chitons_and_another_reports_by_Mark_McMenamin, this is only supported by Mark McMenamin and not enough notable in Wikipedia, as article says. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following arguments made in above linked discussion. Fringe theories have no place here. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you delete an article? Zhenghecaris (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is done by an administrator after consensus to do so has been established. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]