Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< November 30 December 02 >

Purge server cache

San Diego Pumitas

[edit]
San Diego Pumitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having trouble finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this short-lived American soccer team. All that I found were mentions in game recaps (1, 2, etc.). Possible redirect targets include National Premier Soccer League and List of National Premier Soccer League teams. JTtheOG (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mal meninga kuri

[edit]
Mal meninga kuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Only sources are their social media accounts, and the only source online I found was a series of articles by "Post Courier", which doesn't seem reliable at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Asked About You

[edit]
Everyone Asked About You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable band. Toby2023 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireHOL

[edit]
FireHOL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep. Google books and google scholar seems to have a number of books and journals on cyber security, network forensics, ransomware, etc. discussing FireHOL. I confess it is too technical for me to evaluate the sources, but I do think the volume of coverage suggests this is a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for voting. I'm not sure if you read the AfD rationale, but there is some literature about a dataset that an organization called "The FireHOL Project" maintains. Those sources will appear in searches but aren't actually about the subject, a configuration tool that (confusingly) is also named FireHOL. (If this doesn't make any sense to you, consider that it's very common for organizations to release products whose names are identical to that of the organization creating them. For example, people commonly refer to "Google Search" as just "Google".) I understand that you don't feel comfortable evaluating the sources you found, but this is why we don't keep or delete articles based on how many WP: GOOGLEHITS they return. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Pellicano

[edit]
Helene Pellicano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy the coverage in Times of Malta is pretty solid, but they all count as 1 source only per WP:GNG ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization"). Malta Independent's ref is just a match report and is not a significant coverage of Pellicano. I'll see if I can find something more. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VisualPolitik

[edit]
VisualPolitik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

General lack of notability: This is "just another" Youtube channel whose entire notability consists of a few minor appearances in Spanish media. Also, possibly self-promotional. Orphan since creation, with less than 10 editions, and the creator can't be contacted by lack of a contributor page. MaeseLeon (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosral Recordings

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nosral Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prentiss

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Emily Prentiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this newer rendition of the article being up for only a few days, I have made significant contributions and devoted a lot of effort to research and writing in relation to this article. After reviewing the relative policies, it is clear that Emily Prentiss, the character HERSELF, meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and deleting the article or restoring it to a simple redirect is a very ignorant and foolish idea, especially when this article is being continuously improved day-by-day.
Emily Prentiss is a key figure in Criminal Minds, especially Season 12 and onward, when she becomes Unit Chief and later Section Chief, cementing her as one of the most important characters in the show’s 17-season run. She has been in all but three of the seasons, and has been brought back two times by fan demand. Her storylines—like her faked death to evade Ian Doyle and her leadership during high-stakes cases—are not just central to the series but have also been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. Outlets like ScreenRant, Collider, and TVLine have provided in-depth analysis of her character, her role in the show, and her significance in cultural discussions. Many of these sources explore how Prentiss’s narrative and Paget Brewster’s portrayal have resonated with audiences and contributed to broader conversations, such as those about representation and aging in Hollywood.
The article has expanded significantly in recent weeks (as the proposer for deletion acknowledges), with thousands of bytes of new content added to deepen its coverage of her backstory, personality, storylines, and reception. This growth reflects my effort to continue developing this article to surpass the minimum requirements set by Wikipedia for an article like this. Removing it now would dismiss that progress and deny room for future improvements. Articles are not expected to be perfect from the outset, but this one has already demonstrated substantial progress, and its continued development would benefit readers and contributors alike.
The individuals suggesting we restore this article to a redirect have suggested that Prentiss’s article isn’t warranted because some characters from other shows, like NCIS, are treated as redirects. Firstly, I find this hypocritical because those same individuals are the ones complaining about me using the David Rossi article and the failure of deleting his article as one of the justifications for keeping Emily's article. As explained in the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy that those same individuals cited, Wikipedia evaluates articles individually, based on the notability of the subject and the availability of independent secondary coverage. However, the survival of the deletion on David Rossi's article is allowed to be used as an argument per an exception in that policy regarding outcomes of deletion proposals on related articles. And, if we are going to do comparisons to characters of other shows, I'd like to point to Grey’s Anatomy, where over a dozen characters—including multiple minor characters who are less central to the show and less notable than Prentiss—have their own articles. If those characters meet notability requirements, there is no valid reason why Emily Prentiss, a lead character who drives major storylines, should not. If they do not meet the notability requirements, then I struggle to understand the proposer's specific decision to delete this article rather than focus on other character articles that are obviously less notable, less covered, and less detailed. However, as I said before, the existence of other articles is not an argument for the existence of this article. I am just writing this paragraph to emphasize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the opposition's argumentation.
The real-world impact of Prentiss’s character further underscores her notability. Fan demand played a key role in Paget Brewster’s return to the series after her departure, highlighting the character’s importance to viewers. Additionally, Brewster’s decision to embrace her natural gray hair, which was written into the character, sparked cultural conversations about aging and beauty standards. These discussions were covered by major outlets like TODAY and E! Online, showing that Prentiss’s relevance extends far beyond the show.
Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia’s principles of being an open and comprehensive encyclopedia. Emily Prentiss is clearly notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and the article’s ongoing development should not be hindered by what appears to be an ignorant and abrupt attempt to discard it. Removing it now would erase a valuable resource and dismiss the ongoing effort to improve articles relating to Criminal Minds. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN
The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.
----
A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:
  1. Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
  2. ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
  3. E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
  4. CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.
These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.
----
B) Prominence as a Lead Character
  • Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
  • Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.
----
C) Reception and Real-World Discussion
  • Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
  • Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.
This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.
----
D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS
Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”
This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:
  • Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
  • Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
  • Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.
These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.
----
Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”
Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.
----
Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”
Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.
----
Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”
Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.
----
  • The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
  • It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
  • The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
  • The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.
Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.
----
DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:
  1. To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Wikipedia:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
  2. In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
  3. Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Wikipedia:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
  4. Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.
Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you are citing explicitly states:
"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts on the Rossi:
  1. While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
  2. Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th).[6] only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
  3. And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
  4. Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi [7].
But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical that you are arguing against comparing articles while continuing to do just that. The argument that similar characters in other shows have been merged or redirected does not negate Emily Prentiss’s notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and Prentiss clearly meets the criteria. She has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as ScreenRant, Collider, CNN, and TODAY, which analyze her pivotal role as Unit Chief and Section Chief, as well as her cultural impact and importance to the show. These sources go beyond plot summaries to discuss real-world factors like fan campaigns that brought Paget Brewster back to the series and the broader conversations about aging and representation sparked by the decision to integrate Brewster’s gray hair into the character. There's even articles about her romances within the show. These are not trivial mentions; they are substantial discussions about her relevance both within and beyond the show.
Wikipedia evaluates notability based on reliable secondary coverage, not arbitrary metrics like episode counts. Her role as a lead character in major story arcs and as the head of the BAU from Season 12 onward makes her far more central to the narrative than some characters who have been redirected. And potentially, articles for other Criminal Minds may also warrant creation, and I would not be opposed to such a decision.
Please read over WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Firstly, I reject the argument that declining page views signal reduced relevance. Secondly, notability is not temporary, and the character remains central to the currently airing Criminal Minds: Evolution. Interest naturally fluctuates, but revivals and major developments have historically reignited attention on Prentiss and the series. DocZach (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting the sources. Reliable, independent sources like ScreenRant, TODAY, and Collider do more than verify her existence—they analyze key aspects of her character, including her leadership as Unit Chief, her faked death arc, her multiple departures and re-appearances, her special appearances, her romances, and her role in sparking broader cultural conversations about representation and aging. Just because some of Paget Brewster’s decisions shaped some of the narrative doesn't erase the fact that the focus of these sources is also on Prentiss’s impact as a character and her resonance with audiences. These discussions are not trivial mentions—they demonstrate the significance of her character within and beyond the show, meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. This article is 100% warranted on its own. DocZach (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Appears to be mostly, if not entirely trivial coverage of the character. No objection to a split later if significant coverage can be found, but people here appear to be confused about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think we should merge an entire article-length coverage with over 30 sources of a character into another article that already has a long list of characters? Did you even take the time to read any of the sources provided in this article? DocZach (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just in passing. Sources like ScreenRant, Collider, and TODAY provide in-depth analysis of Emily Prentiss’s narrative arcs, including her faked death, her return as Unit Chief due to fan demand, her romances, her appearance, and her evolution as a leader in the show. This is precisely the type of sustained, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV defines as significant, and it establishes Prentiss’s clear notability as a standalone topic, making a merge inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong arguments on both sides, with no consensus forming. @DocZach: I strongly advise you to review WP:BLUDGEONING before you continue. Your lengthy, persistent, repetitive responses to every opposing view will not help sway the outcome your way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. DocZach (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  2. ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  3. ^ "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  4. ^ France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  5. ^ "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  6. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  7. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  8. ^ "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  9. ^ Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  10. ^ Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  11. ^ "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  12. ^ "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  13. ^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  14. ^ "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

[edit]
Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.
+Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)
I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you show me which sources show the significant improvement. Adding content without significant coverage would not be HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Youlin Magazine source does not appear to have traction to be considered reliable to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I applaud the effort to improve the contents, but this AfD will be decided based on whether reliable sources provide coverage significant enough to meet our notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Sherwood

[edit]
Yorke Sherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)
    PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.
    1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

    The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

    Emphasis mine. Prolific.
    I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.
    2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.
    3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.
    4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.
    Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. There are many sources discussing his work in google books; usually in the context of individual parts within specific films. He was a busy character actor that portrayed a range of parts from small roles to mid-sized parts and even a few principal character roles. Altogether the sourcing collectively meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR, and while I didn't do a thorough search, a preliminary search indicates he most likely will pass WP:GNG, if the right amount of time and digging is put into the article, and thanks to Mushy Yank for the work they have put in. He gets a bit more than a passing mention in a 2/16/1931 piece in the The Evening Independent (St. Petersburgh, FL), The Sunday Messenger in Athens, OH calls him a "noted British player", in their review of The Man in Possession on 8/30/1931, even though he is clearly in a supporting role. He has mentions in papers from Adelaide and Murrumbidgee (NSW) to Manitoba, Canada.Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical analysis of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aikande Kwayu

[edit]
Aikande Kwayu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Promotional bio that appears to be written by an editor with a COI. I recommend returning this to draftspace and salting the page since the editor has re-created the page several times now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saint Louis Athletica players

[edit]
List of Saint Louis Athletica players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of third party coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Great Food Truck Race episodes

[edit]
List of The Great Food Truck Race episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently, this article consists entirely of plot summary, and summary-only descriptions of works are not suitable for Wikipedia. I also believe that it is not notable according to the guidelines on the notability of lists. Proving notability would be next-to-impossible because most coverage that could potentially establish the notability of this list also belongs at the main article, The Great Food Truck Race, and there’s no point in creating a redundant fork of the information at the main article if the list of episodes is not independently notable. —PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 21:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Zoopocalypse

[edit]
Night of the Zoopocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film that has been in development limbo and does not meet notability guidelines for unreleased films, which are only notable if production itself is notable. Review of the sources shows that they are not about the production itself, and that they are not independent, consisting of information from the producers.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 cartoonbrew.com An article about the production company Yes No. Passing mention of film. Yes? Yes
2 www.animationmagazine.net A sneak preview of the film No Yes Yes No
3 deadline.com A press release about the film No Yes Yes No
4 variety.com Combination advance preview and interviews No Yes Yes No
5 www.instagram.com An Instagram by the composer No Yes No No
6 www.animationmagazine.net A description of the teaser No Yes Yes No

This article was declined three times in draft space and then moved to article space. It should be moved back to draft space.

My Occurrence

[edit]
My Occurrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just another poorly written episode article that is mainly plot with a small review section. These kind of articles might have been good 10 years ago, but new episode articles should need more to them than just a review section. Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game

[edit]
2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm a die hard Lions fan and that's a big part of my editing, but this game isn't particular special or deserving of a standalone article. The only "remarkable" part about it was a mishap regarding taking a timeout at the end, which is a mishap that happens several times a season. Does not warrant a standalone article and should be deleted.

I obviously understand there was bad clock management, there's no doubt about that, but this is barely more than what routinely happens every single season several times. Games are always cost this way, by miscommunications. There's always going to be sensationalized reporting that happens immediately after a game, that's frankly expected. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough game. Definite recency bias in this articles creation. This is not one of those games that will be mentioned as an all-timer. The Hail Mary game versus the Commanders, sure, but not this. Maybe it deserves a special mention in the Bears' and Lions' season pages, but nothing more than that. Eg224 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.E.D Inc.

[edit]
G.E.D Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(removed WP:PROD) No sources showing WP:CORP is met. DJ Vlad interview the deprodder added also doesn't count for that guideline. Mach61 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ai sponge

[edit]
Ai sponge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this has very lasting notability - multiple of the sources used are listed as unreliable on WP:VGRS and WP:RS/PS.

In particular:

  • Dexerto is noted as a "tabloid publication" on VGRS
  • TheGamer is noted as a "situational source" on VGRS (see: WP:VALNET)
  • Cracked.com is noted as "generally unreliable" on RS/PS
  • Medium is a self-published source (see: WP:MEDIUM)

The news coverage of this was also very brief, as no reliable source exists for the discontinuation of the livestream, as well as a lack of reliable sources for Uberduck in general. Also note that the article's creator has been blocked for edit warring. wizzito | say hello! 19:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda High School, Alkapuri

[edit]
Baroda High School, Alkapuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outfolded

[edit]
Outfolded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article falls just short of the general notability guideline. After a WP:BEFORE search, I had found a couple articles from reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. However, the last three sources do not contain significant coverage of the article's subject. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: Springbok Challenge 1

[edit]
Gladiators: Springbok Challenge 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 2

[edit]
Gladiators: The Ashes 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators: The Ashes 1

[edit]
Gladiators: The Ashes 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 2

[edit]
International Gladiators 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic; this one also has a plot summary but that does not really qualify it. No reliable sources. If sources are later found they can be added to the main article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Gladiators 1

[edit]
International Gladiators 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic; this one also has a plot summary but that does not really qualify it. No reliable sources. Searched up this one individually, nothing except confusion with an eSports tournament. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 4

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 3

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 2

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bayme

[edit]
Steven Bayme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to American Jewish Committee as WP:ATD. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of Bayme's work for AJC. Academic work and standing is not significantly impactful. Longhornsg (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 8

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 6

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely upon the website of the show's television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wandu Bimo

[edit]
Stephen Wandu Bimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with self published and unreliable sources, mixed with fake citation that does not support most of what is written on the article, and what is factually is from a self-published source. As for notability, does not meet any of the notability criteria for a musician FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 5

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. No reliable sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin O'Reilly

[edit]
Gavin O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Significant enough. Evolvedtyrant (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolvedtyrant… Could you elaborate your concerns to enable a good debate? Prima facie the CEO of a large media group and chair of the world newspaper body, with coverage, does not seem an obvious concern re notability. SeoR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 7

[edit]
Gladiators (1992 British TV series) series 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies entirely upon the website of the television platform. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these -- searched a few, found nothing. These articles are essentially an episode listing and are not encyclopedic. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles I didn’t bundle nominate these because bundle nominations are so often closed for procedural reasons. You will need to comment at each discussion separately. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandidos MC support clubs

[edit]
List of Bandidos MC support clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a few of these have their own articles, and the rest of them are cited mainly to their own webpages. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I recommend this article be deleted due to the list not having a claim to notability. ... discospinster talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due West (band)

[edit]
Due West (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wanted to help improve the references for this article, but I found only their own social media, a small news article about a local event, and interviews (i.e. non-independent sources) with the band. If someone else can do better and improve the article, I am very happy with that outcome! But I can not find any criteria in wp:band that they seem to fit. -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Fourth of July shootings

[edit]
2024 Fourth of July shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like a press release and does not show any signs of lasting notability. Seems like WP:SYNTH is violated. Also note there was a similar article that was deleted last year. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
NoFrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear sufficiently notable. FactorNews article alone seems below significant coverage and Sébastien Delahaye reflection mentions their FTP server. IgelRM (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem like reliable/significant coverage. Searched for sources in French & English and cannot find any (except blogs) either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant perception (paranormal)

[edit]
Plant perception (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as paranormal plant perception, this is not an independent field of research and the article is misleading as what the article describes is the "Backster effect". Most of the sourcing on the article refers to Cleve Backster. He is the only person in history to hold such ideas. The majority of this article is just citing Backster's experiments which is mostly duplicated material from his own Wikipedia article. There is a main article on plant cognition. I suggest that this article should be deleted and any information if needed in the "research" section of the article can be merged into Cleve Backster's own Wikipedia article which also contains criticism of his experiments. This article serves no purpose.

The two recently added single lines on the article about Jainism and Manichaeism are off-mission and belong on the plant soul article which is a religious belief. I suggest the article to be deleted and redirected to Cleve Backster. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the nominated page is about stuff that is WP:FRINGE. But the pagename is the right name for that kind of stuff. On the other hand, the plant cognition page mentioned by the nominator is equally fringe. It makes the counter-scientific assumption that tropism and related kinds of plant responses to environmental stimuli are equivalent to cognition. For this reason, I believe that the nominated page should be kept, and a lot of rewriting is, instead, needed. Plant cognition should be largely merged into the page nominated here, rather than the other way around. Some parts of the cognition page are actually based on real physiology, and should be merged, instead, into the physiology page (and any non-scientific stuff there should be relocated in the opposite direction). So, while I agree with the nominator that we do not need both the paranormal and the cognition page, the one that should really be deleted (well, actually, just made into a redirect via a merge) is actually the cognition page. The paranormal page should be kept as the page that covers the various counter-scientific ideas that have been promoted over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all this type of fringe content related to plant intelligence or "plant neurobiology" needs its own article away from the mainstream plant physiology article on perception. That is why I expanded the plant cognition article which unfortunately has the wrong title. All the WP:RS refer to the this fringe field as "plant intelligence" not plant cognition. I would support merging Backster's content on this article into the plant cognition article which should be renamed plant intelligence. The "plant intelligence" field is supported by botanists and philosophers such as Tony Trewavas, František Baluška, Stefano Mancuso, Peter V. MInorsky and Paco Calvo and is supported by plenty of reliable sourcing. However, there is no reliable references calling their research "paranormal". What they are promoting is definitely fringe but it isn't paranormal. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Room

[edit]
The Student Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. mikeblas (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aresu Rabbani

[edit]
Aresu Rabbani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for activists. As always, activists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third party media coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary source content on the self-published websites and/or social networking accounts of organizations directly affiliated with the subject, which are not support for notability.
There are just two hits of third-party media coverage shown here, of which one is clearly WP:GNG-worthy and one is debatable, but even if we grant the debatable one the benefit of the doubt it still takes more than just two GNG-worthy sources to get a person over GNG.
This may, further, be an WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by a virtual WP:SPA named "AresuGeography", but people aren't entitled to create their own articles about themselves on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

[edit]
Michael Beint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GM Modular

[edit]
GM Modular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think this meets the WP:NCORP criteria, as it only has routine coverage and lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Baqi:) (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

[edit]
Negative keyword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded  Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [15] and Apple [16] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [17] [18] [19].
Book references are also forthcoming: [20] [21] [22] [23]
The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naufal Ahmad

[edit]
Naufal Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There aren't much to establish notability. Likely doesn't meet WP:BASIC. There are these: [24][25][26][27] but they seem to be routine press releases and I'm not sure if they're reliable. Frost 15:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hurtz

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael Hurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ward (darts player)

[edit]
Ben Ward (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Payne (darts)

[edit]
Tony Payne (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Heard

[edit]
Len Heard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stephenson

[edit]
Mark Stephenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Capewell

[edit]
Les Capewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

[edit]
American Association of Professional Landmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qurna (Iraq War)

[edit]
Battle of Qurna (Iraq War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax. Unsourced. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possibly a complete hoax, possibly just overblown. I spent a decent amount of time trying to determine if this was a real battle or not, and basically came up empty. It is possible, likely even, that at some point there was some sort of contact between insurgents in the vicintiy of Al-Qurna and Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq) personell that led to combat action, but at best "battle of Qurna" seems like an exaggeration. This war was covered extensively by the international media, and this article alleges ten coalition fatalities and nearly thirty more wounded, but there are zero sources that confirm this. When we can't confirm an event happened, we should not cover that event. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Kannauj War

[edit]
Sino-Kannauj War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.
Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf«Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf«Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf«Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf«Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf«Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:
    • p. 125

      In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.

    • p. 124

      But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.

    The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf«Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:
    • p. 126

      On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

    HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf«Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf«Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf«Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf«Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm exactly talking about the "full quote" in the source. Garudam Talk! 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well I have reviewed the sources itself. The topics outrightly fails SIGCOV and the issue of HOAX remains, this topic should have been rather included in parent pages, say Pushyabhuti dynasty but I don't think it clears the certain criterias to have a standalone article. Garudam Talk! 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garudam The HOAX is already cleared by Ixudi stop repeating reasonings and again Wars tend to have separate article it helps clear confusion and correct all your signatures above since you changed name and coverage matter. Edasf«Talk» 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of back and forth, but very few participants. Additional opinions would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Omran Daqneesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, WP:BLP, and no WP:LASTING. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes kindly provide proper rationale and sources which you believe satisfies the GNG and SIGCOV criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage past 2017, nothing that I can find either past that date. Could be a few words in an article about the war in Syria but nothing of lasting notability. He was featured in flurry of media, then faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VoxelStorm

[edit]
VoxelStorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the company itself. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Boakye-Danquah

[edit]
Aaron Boakye-Danquah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Almost all sources are about his family or projects - no significant coverage. No reliable sources were found online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be many, an extensive article has been published (as referenced) regarding his appointment as an ambassador for an internationally recognized organization. The legitimacy of his nobility, if relevant, is beyond question. How many publications would be considered "enough" in this context? This article was never about a celebrity to begin with. Moreover, there are numerous nobles with Wikipedia articles solely due to their lineage, despite making little to no impact themselves.
How often do publications feature African personalities in depth, beyond narratives centered on poverty? Efforts like this deserve recognition. Everyone begins their journey somewhere, at their own level. This article should not be dismissed as irrelevant—it represents a significant achievement, not just for an individual, but for an entire continent. AkakomPrincess1 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Vanjagenije (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the article published about him by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, there are numerous references from reliable Ghanaian newspapers that establish his role as a business developer for facilitatiing the Ghana Innovative Housing Project. Furthermore, a reference from the "house of innovations" recognizes him as a business developer in Europe. These points, in my view, provide ample relevance beyond his family ties. 2A01:6BC0:2:F1:1:0:3:543C (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the focus should be on the „appointment“ to this new role and not what he was before. I see no issues here. 2A01:599:A09:BBE0:8882:787:3002:120F (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfor Rahaman

[edit]
Lutfor Rahaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. The only source is a Goodreads page of one of his books, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup winning players

[edit]
Stanley Cup winning players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The effort here is amazing but this is clearly against WP:NOTDIR. If it was a list of players whose name was engraved onto the Stanley Cup, that would make sense. However, this is a list of players which also includes players who did not even play in the series or made a brief appearences. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, convert the page to players whose names are engraved on the Stanley Cup. I understand, from the talk page of this article, there is an article in progress: User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup. That would make more sense, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Swami Vivekananda: Messiah of Resurgent India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although it has been tagged for notability for over a year, I could not find substantial coverage to meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeda Awards

[edit]
Takeda Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this award. The underlying Takeda Foundation is a redlink (has never been blue). The organization's listed webpage [28] does not list any activity since 2006. That site's lists of awards only include 2001 and 2002 and notes that the award programs are suspended as of 2003. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

[edit]
Bart Simpson (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny.
    While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).
My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.
Thanks for your interest.
Link to Telefilm Canada funding announcement: [29]https://telefilm.ca/en/telefilm-canada-funds-the-production-of-20-feature-length-documentaries-in-the-english-market
Link to DOC-NYC Voices of Canada Industry Roundtable 2023: [30]https://www.docnyc.net/industry-roundtables/ Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 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! 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Tata Memorial Trust

[edit]
Lady Tata Memorial Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several Trusts listed on the Tata Group page, none of which appear to be notable. This particular one I cannot locate any significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

What makes the topic notable is the following information about the Trust:

"The Lady Tata Memorial Trust was one of the earliest philanthropic trusts created to support world-wide leukaemia research. Very little was known about leukaemia at the time of the establishment of the Trust. The Trust provided fellowships and grants to some of the leading international researchers and contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia."

Even though there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain, in my view, the topic is hugely notable because of the fact that the Trust "has contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia". So, I strongly oppose the move to delete the article. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the WP:BEFORE assessment with "there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain." Unfortunately, significant coverage is required so having little information is not going to support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environment (systems)

[edit]
Environment (systems) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this defines a term, but it seems unlikely that it can be expanded beyond "In thermodynamics, *heat* can sometimes be exchanged with the environment". I doubt there is a meaningful history of the concept that "the thing you study interacts with the things around it in some approximated way". There are currently no sources and Google searches (for obvious) reasons do not turn up relevant ones per WP:BEFORE. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

[edit]
Miss Universe 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

نوحفث   Let's Chat! 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this is leaning towards not keeping this in mainspace. But I don't see consensus for any specific outcome yet, whether it be deletion, draftification, or otherwise. Relisting to obtain more discussion around particular outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Chief: Subic Bay

[edit]
The Master Chief: Subic Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film has a single source and upon quick search on Google there is no quality citations yet. The film has unknown filming status. See WP:NFF. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Novos Negócios

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Votorantim Novos Negócios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.

This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aptera 2 Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creepTalk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places.  Stepho  talk  11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creepTalk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release?  Stepho  talk  00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck?  Stepho  talk  08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA rookie single-season rebounding leaders

[edit]
List of NBA rookie single-season rebounding leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NLIST; unable to find any independent secondary reliable sources discussing this list topic as a group or set in a WP:BEFORE search. It's possible this is tracked in stats databases, but such sources alone are insufficient in affirming wiki-notability. Left guide (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GameRevolution

[edit]
GameRevolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of this article is sourced from Game Revolution itself. Not seeing enough secondary sources on the site which makes this website appear to not be notable to get its own article. GamerPro64 05:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the sources, none of them clearly give reliable/significant/independent/secondary coverage. The only possible ones are the two sources (DMW & Reuters) discussing the purchase, but the coverage is not very significant, and the Reuters one is explicitly a press release, while the DMW one is very likely one anyways. Google books/regular search reveal no sources and there is no obvious reason why any should exist, given it's a minor gaming news source that features in awards sometimes. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SIGCOV, and lack of notability. Encoded  Talk 💬 14:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IgelRM (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Games in relief

[edit]
Games in relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- this appears to be a term for a kind of game, with very limited encyclopedic possibilities. The citations added to the article on Hoyt Wilhelm have been added to his article, where his record was noted by not cited. The only other information is the definition of a game in relief, which has been merged to Relief pitcher, tagged with citation needed. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities

[edit]
List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding,  WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.
Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fibras Industriales S.A.

[edit]
Fibras Industriales S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to see whether support is for Merge, Redirect or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

[edit]
Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. But without some policy-based reasons to Keep this article, it looks like it might be heading towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Melee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by an etymology of the word. This kind of content can be added to Wiktionary but Wikipedia itself is not a dictionary. I suggest deletion and moving the DAB page to primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page clearly extends beyond a WP:DICDEF. The terms use in a variety of contexts such as gaming extends its coverage beyond mere etymology. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it passes WP:GNG, then please expound on the WP:THREE best sources of significant coverage so that other people in the nomination can see for themselves. I should note that the specific definition of the medieval "melee" tournament is not what this article is actually about. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments divided betwen Keep and Deleting it and moving a DAB page to this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that another relevant article is Hand-to-hand combat, which is essentially close-quarters combat, but without ranged weapons, and more focused on history, although a good part of it currently (emphasis) focuses on unarmed combat. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation, which should include Hand-to-hand combat -- a melee appears to usually just mean "a chaotic hand-to-hand combat"; the only stipulation is the hand-to-hand combat article refers to close-range weapons only and not guns, etc. so the Close-quarters battle should also be linked because the phrase "a chaotic melee with guns" is valid. Current content of the article is largely an etymology (a very nice etymology, but it still belongs in a dictionary), and does not need to be merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cihan Erdal

[edit]
Cihan Erdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tornado

[edit]
Ultimate Tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this one-off documentary from 2006 meets notability guidelines. Happy to be proven wrong but can't find it anywhere other than in directories and mirrors. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

[edit]
Nerdy Prudes Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [46] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.
    Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."
    If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.
While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.
It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.
This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.
@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [47]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [48]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

[edit]
List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Zero sources. The creator of this has been indef blocked "(Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Numbers do not match citations...this is intentional.)" I didn't look through all his lists etc, but don't need to. The People's Republic of China has more than a billion population. It's not even reasonable to believe they could have only 7 generals. Also, there are different levels of generals within any military. — Maile (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lalli

[edit]
Matt Lalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former lacrosse player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes please bear in mind to provide sources with SIGCOV for better analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Johns Hopkins University student organizations

[edit]
List of Johns Hopkins University student organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of third party coverage of the list as a grouping, and also is a case of WP:NOTPROMO as this reads like promotional material for the school. PROD was removed with additional sources added but they appear to only be concerned with fraternities and sororities, not student organizations. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nissrine Chaoudri

[edit]
Nissrine Chaoudri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. None of the sources are independent, and the article is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

[edit]
Ex Muslim Sahil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: The 2nd source, Delhi-Magazine, is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state above voter misstates when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. GrabUp - Talk 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Wikipedia's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. GrabUp - Talk 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met even if INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by Jclemens.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from India Today appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one is an RS? Taabii (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
chatbot-generated post
- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Wikipedia entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
chatbot-generated post
  • Keepstriking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Wikipedia entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"