Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

6 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 05	September 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Craig, Indiana

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

Maps and aerials show clearly that this was a rail junction, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Washington, D.C.

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

Fails WP:ORG. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Laos, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laos–United States relations.--User:Namiba 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Laos–United States relations as usual. The building is, I believe, a contributing property to a NRHP district, but there's nothing much here about the building and in any case this can be handled through redirection. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Machines Channel

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

Article is entirely sourced to YouTube links, social media pages, or the channel's website. I cannot find any third-party sources. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Giraffer (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Bird

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

This article cites a lot of sources, but they're nearly all about his gubernatorial campaign or recall, and the rest are from local outlets about actions taken by the school board while he was in office. At least 6 of the sources are just election results. Just implicitly, I don't see how running for governor and getting recalled from his school board position make him notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, a failed political candidate isn't notable, the article seems to focus on the various "controversies", wearing masks, faking the diver's badge... I don't see notability based on scandals alone. A school board position isn't quite NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG - there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources about the subject to establish notability and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization and the notable people who have been associated with the program ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully and strongly disagree. In almost all cases, academic programs are notable only because of one or both of two things: high rankings from independent sources, and notable faculty and alumni. The entry establishes that the Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University, satisfies both of those criteria.

If this is not sufficient, then I would point out that there are countless other entries on Wikipedia about academic units that should also be deleted. I won’t name them (except see below) because I think they are useful entries for people trying to understand the connections between scholars, the histories of fields, possible places for study, and more.

I note that ElKevbo is a scholar at the University of Delaware, like MSU also a superb public university. When I go to the categories page for that university, the top entry I see in the left column is for the Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics. The top entry I see in the right column is the Institute of Energy Conversion. Neither lists any external references that indicate notability. These are just two such entries in the University of Delaware category, and there are several others.

I don’t envy the Wikipedia editors who must work hard to sustain quality and, in so doing, set and implement reasonable and fair standards. However, those standards may need revision and/or more reliance on good-faith, verifiable information about well-known institutions and productive scholars. Otherwise, the standards should be enforced consistently and fairly. I favor more reliance on good-faith, readily verifiable information (even if from university websites) about institutions and scholars, which I think will allow Wikipedia to be most useful to its readers. Factsnfigurestoo (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenet Media

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

Company may fall under issues related to WP:ILLCON. At present, all sources on the page are related to a current DOJ indictment. I have searched for articles discussing the organization published prior to September 1 and have been unable to find anything establishing notability (which is honestly surprising). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the article being about the organization, perhaps you should change the article title to 2024 Tenet Media investigation or 2024 DoJ Russian influence investigation, which most certainly is notable. Just because something's recent or in the news does not mean it's notable. — The Anome (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a tough one, I guess they can't be notable for simply being investigated, but there is tooooooo much coverage of it happening to not be notable, somehow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a good choice, probably to a new "Russian influcence" as suggested; I don't think this will be the only such outlet to get investigated. This seems to be a big thing that will involve many more outlets... Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chen

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

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Academic publications mentioning Chen: "is the “lite” in “alt-lite?” The discourse of white vulnerability and dominance among YouTube’s reactionaries", "Streaming to transgress: the racial politics of reactionary YouTubers and their audiences", and "Right-Wing Populism and Gender"
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenet Media
Comment almost TOOSOON. About all I could find from before the scandal is this [1], I don't think it's enough... She will almost certainly be notable for the scandal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple date-restricted Google search reveals that Chen is widely-known and has been widely discussed across the internet for several years. Until the recent Russian influence allegations, her actions weren't such that she would have reason to be discussed much on what Wikipedia considers RSs. Now they are and that is likely to continue. While WP is "not the news," this appears to be a significant event, the background of which will be of broad public interest for a significant period of time. Chen's personal and professional history will be of importance to readers as they seek to learn about the events. John2510 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Couzens

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

Basically, wp:oneevent. I'm not suggesting lack of notability, but I believe that notability is wholly dependant upon the Murder of Sarah Everard, which has a section on him. I suggest a redirect to this article suffices. TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Sỹ Đức

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

Could not find any sources online talking about him alone. Thus failing the first criteria of WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Vietnam. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hysland Aliaj

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

Played in a semi-pro second tier with match attendance in the hundreds. So fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, unless there are significant sources. During my search I only found this regarding football, a transfer case. I also found coverage of a crime, which I don't know if is related. Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McDuff

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

Soccer player who never played in the league system, only collegiately. Creator is indefinitely blocked. Sourced to primary sources and Linked In at the moment; I don't see a potential. Geschichte (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrenceburg Junction, Indiana

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

Baker is seemingly less than accurate about labelling things "villages", and it's clear from looking at the maps and aerials that this is, as one might expect, a railroad junction. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani animated television series

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

An unsourced list of non-notable work does not really meet WP:NLIST imv. and since it includes only a handful of entries, it's make sense to delete it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 11:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A rather standard list. Can be very easily sourced individually or with things like https://english.aaj.tv/news/330375751/pti-calls-off-rally-as-islamabad-red-zone-sealed-schools-closed ; https://tribune.com.pk/story/409963/animatedly-yours etc. There's no "TV animation in Pakistan" article so a list is suitable. Could also be considered a WP:SPLITLIST of List of Pakistani television series so I find no real reason for deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So If there isn’t an article on TV animation in Pakistan, probably due to insufficient coverage, then having a list on the topic, which also lacks coverage and primarily includes non-notable work, seems unnecessary and fails to meet WP:NLIST imv. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable list for now without prejudice to recreating at some point with reliable sources. jwtmsqeh (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apostate Prophet

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

None of the given sources are reliable (YouTube, Reddit, etc.), so nothing to contribute to WP:GNG in any way. A quick WP:BEFORE only gives an interview to Jewish News Syndicate (primary, doesn't count for notability) and a report on one of his presentations by edhat.com. I am not sure whether that last source is reliable, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

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

All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - need to be vigilant for paid / self written promotional articles like this 92.95.93.78 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[2] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPath^talk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
- ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPath^talk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.

Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to have expertise in migration and policy, as evidenced by her education and the experience detailed in the article. This is supported by the citations, which often involve news outlets seeking or highlighting the subject's thoughts on these topics, e.g. "Asylum aid charity: Migrant crisis 'disgraceful'". BBC News. 30 July 2015. and Morrison, Hamish (22 February 2023). "Asylum expert Zoe Gardner schools Jonathan Gullis on why refugees come to UK". The National. The article could be better written but that's not a reason to delete. Nnev66 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not useful for establishing WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPath^talk 01:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say anything in WP:SIGCOV about interviews not counting? Although I agree the BBC one probably wouldn't for notability I think it's evidence of expertise (or why would they interview her?) I would also count the PRWeek 30 under 30 article (yes, references like these are a bit promotional but I'd still count it). In addition to The National reference noted above, the following references in the article also have more significant coverage:
Smith, Ginny (8 February 2024). "Defenders of Democracy: Zoe Gardner". Sussex Bylines. (I don't know how reliable it is but it has editorial oversight)

Dadlani, Priya (18 April 2016). "What would 'Brexit' mean for refugees?". Thomson Reuters Foundation News.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Thomson Reuters article is not WP:SIGCOV of Gardner -- it provides sigcov of the migration issue and quote her incidentally to her work. That's WP:ROUTINE. The Sussex Bylines piece is an WP:INTERVIEW; its content is entirely sourced to Gardner herself and thus is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:INTERVIEW link as I hadn't seen that - it reads to me that interviews are OK if the interviewer is an established journalist or at least independent of the subject. I don't know Sussex Bylines so can't tell what the situation is there. I tend to include articles for notability that have at least a few sentences about the person provided there are multiple other sources, which there appear to be here. This one may be an edge case in that regard. Nnev66 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted delete on the original listing and I'd just like to clarify my vote now that this has been relisted. As far as I understand this is basically a spokesperson for a few NGOs (most notably Asylum aid and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), who has had some occasional past media coverage as part of her role as a spokesperson for an NGO. Seems pretty clear to me that this is non-notable, unless we should start creating articles for every spokesperson on the basis they they've appeared in some media coverage as part of their job. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Institute for Educational Research Award for Outstanding Educational Research

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

No sources when searching in Google news, books and Scholar. Sources 4-11 merely confirm winners but are not significant coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Prilep War

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

The article is entirely originally researched and some of the listed sources are unreliable (such as Srpski kod). Every rivalry is not always treated as a war by sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A clear Delete. --Local hero ^talk 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of New Zealand national rugby league team test matches

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

Article relys on a single source, article is strangely formatted and isn't consistent with other similar articles, case for WP:TNT so a proper List of New Zealand national rugby league team results can be created.

Previously PRODed, and was reverted on the basis that the article could be improved and that I as PRODed nominator had changed the name of the page. Yes, article could be improved, but there is virtually nothing novel or useful on this page so don't see why edit history needs retaining for a new article "List of New Zealand national rugby league team results". Articles name was changed to better reflect the article content. But in reality, it is so far away from the standard way to display a list of national team results that it's best to be deleted. To fix this page would involve removing 99% of the content anyway. Mn1548 (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tongan National Rugby League

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

Article has a signle reference which isn't actually anything to do with the article subject. Google searching the topic only returns the Wikipedia and the Facebook page. "Official Website" is a GoDaddy domain sale site. Mn1548 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (provisionally) on grounds of WP:NEXISTS (sort of).~~redirect to Tonga National Rugby League. Deletion not the best outcome because this article pre-exists the redirect target -- the target started as a redirect to this article -- and we should retain the history.

This article [3] tells part of the story - they got kicked out of the International Rugby League and had no support from the Tonga government. And this [4] from last week says Tonga has been readmitted under new management. The second one is primary, and I haven't found a source that reported the announcement although I have seen articles about the Tonga team already scheduled for matches.

Adding to the confusion, in 2013 a retired editor may have had a tendency to unconstructively edit rugby pages, e.g., [5]. This diff shows what was added to the article, suggesting that even if though it wasn't a hoax to begin with it became one later. TNRL Global Insurance redirect should probably be deleted.

So deleting the article right now may leave them with no article for the team. The article as it stands is a hot mess, but it exists and could perhaps be salvaged.

Happy to hear further views on this. Oblivy (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have confused the subject of this AfD with Tonga National Rugby League. This AfD is for the competition Tongan National Rugby League where as the sources provided relate to the governing body which is linked first. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or this may just be me getting confused on the differences between revision. In that case a redirect to Tonga National Rugby League could be a better option (for now) so at least the page history is still there for anyone who wants to attempt to salvage it. Mn1548 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful.

As I understand it, Tonga National Rugby League was created as a redirect to Tongan National Rugby League by the person who had at the time renamed Tongan to TNRL Global Insurance Cup. Then Tonga was rebuilt as a good faith article while TNRL/Tongan remained a piece of trash article.

So the proper thing would be to delete Tongan and then Tonga needs to be updated? I still think the TNRL redirect page is unlikely to be of any value.

Note: I haven't included diffs as this is all quite convoluted. But the history of the articles around 2013 shows the moves by @Renamed user 9r8u7g6b5y4n3r2l1 Oblivy (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I still feel deletion is the best course of action. The Tonga article is clearly about the governing body whereas the TongaN article is trying to be both the governing body and competition AND is unsourced. Plus I can't find anything to suggest the competition is notable as a stand alone article. Mn1548 (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to redirect. The history of these articles is messy and I don't really feel like pulling them apart to see if there's any common history. A redirect is pretty harmless and it could pass for accidental misspelling if you don't view edit history. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a confusing situation with two articles with nearly identical page titles. A few more opinions here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to stand need more sources. Xegma(talk) 12:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kerala Government Engineering Colleges

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

This feels like a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE or WP:NOTCATALOG. It's just raw table no explaination whatsoever. This fails WP:NLIST per WP:LISTPURP.

Also nominating the following:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For bundled nominations, I like to see more participation if it looks like articles might be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now, it can be expanded and add sources. Xegma(talk) 12:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Sultan Bin Sulayem

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

Fails WP:BIO. Just here to advertise his business. Refs are profiles. scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Mohammad Mokhber

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

Hello, after the death of Ebrahim Raisi, no new government has been formed in Iran and only Mohammad Mokhber, Ebrahim Raisi's deputy, temporarily headed the 13th cabinet until Masoud Pezeshkian won the 2024 election and became the president of Iran and formed the 14th cabinet. I must point out that the formation of the cabinet by Mohammad Mokhber was possible if he presented a list of proposed ministers to the Islamic Consultative Assembly and asked for a vote of confidence from the representatives, However, according to Iranian law, dismissal and vote of confidence in cabinet ministers are prohibited until the new president takes office. It should be noted that a similar page was created for this topic in Persian Wikipedia, which led to the deletion of that page in the request for deletion on June 8, 2024. Mihanyar (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Ebrahim Raisi and note that they were caretaking and no major changes to the cabinet occurred after Raisi's death and before Pezeshkian took office. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Band of Orcs

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

This is the page for an American heavy metal band. It's been tagged for a decade as needing more references and for having some COI editing. I can't find anything online which might constitute significant coverage and nothing in the article suggests anything that would fulfill WP:MUSICBIO: they've played support slots for established bands and one of their songs was once played on a long-running UK radio rock show, but this doesn't confer notability. There's no evidence of music chart success, nor of industry awards success, no major label interest, and none of the band members is individually notable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are dead link and no new sources added till now. Xegma(talk) 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graph Tech Guitar Labs

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:TRADES publications and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. The page creator seems to have grabbed every possible web link referring to this company to stuff into this page, and not one of them contributes to notability. (Nota bene: the now-blocked page creator has acknowledged receiving payment for creating this page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Rocket

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

No sign that this band has done anything major enough to pass NMUSIC. There is this (archived) source for this band that discusses it for a single paragraph. There is also a review on a website where "anyone can post a review". Badbluebus (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Badbluebus (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article points to their meeting any of the WP:NBAND criteria. Orange sticker (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. and 2. sources are dead link and also new sources not added till now. Xegma(talk) 11:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pini Althaus

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

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. The sources look plentiful but are a mix of passing (or no) mentions, the subject commenting on something, and primary sources, none of which contributes anything towards notability. The one possible exception is the Swagger piece, but it's borderline at best, and in any case alone nowhere near enough. BEFORE search finds nothing better. This was draftified but moved back, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Australia, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM business exec. I was one of those with substantially greater experience. WP:RESUME and WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming consensus moves in the direction of draftification I find that acceptable. But it cannot stay in main space in the state it is in. So my alternate !vote is draftify. I note the creating editor feels them to be notable. They should have the chance to prove it in the relative peace and quiet of Draft space if they wish. I'm sure (0.95 probability) that the nominator would agree with that.

@Edvardd: I don't want to open a discussion between us unless we use your or my talk page, but you may wish to consider modifying your opinion to send this back to Draft. There are technical reasons under WP:DRAFTIFY which mean such a move requires consensus after its sudden move back to Main Space. I doubt anyone will resist draftification, but I have been incorrect before. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the article should be kept because the subject is a notable figure in the field of rare earth mineral extraction and mining. He has been quoted or mentioned in over a dozen articles on Mining.com alone, in addition to other reputable industry publications. You can find relevant examples through this search: Google Search for Pini Althaus on mining.com.

Furthermore, he has been featured and interviewed by well-known media outlets, including:

Forbes, Newsmax, Fox, Fox Video Interview, The Wall Street Journal, another WSJ, Financial Times

These sources highlight his expertise and significant presence in the industry, which clearly establishes his notability. For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping the article. Edvardd (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point, he has been "quoted or mentioned" and "interviewed", none of which contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than perform a full source analysis, I have visited all the current references and those suggested above. I see primary sources, churnalism of PR pieces, interviews with the subject (we do not care what he says, only what is reported about him), and press releases and not one single reference the verify notability. I could not reach anything behind a paywall. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia, and these references are wholly insufficient to verify the subject's notability. They do show that he exists. Many are covering the corporation, or the market, but not the subject 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in spite of how over-done the article is. There are sources that consider him an expert and has received much coverage on the complicated topic of rare earths and metals mining. he has plenty of national coverage and mentions as an expert .Its clear that Althaus has also played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy on rare earth minerals, advising both the Trump and Biden administrations and contributing to key legislation such as the RARE Act and the Permanent Magnet Act. His expertise has been featured in all major media outlets covering rare earths and precious metals mining like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Yahoo and Forbes.

Given his profound impact on the industry and his media presence, I say keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saliham (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.
Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources and there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage for an article. The only secondary source about her is too brief to create a proper article from. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs some help by someone who knows more I do, but I think it can be kept for now. Bduke (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [6]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.

I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Nacht

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Never been referenced as a BLP since it was created. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging in Atbannett, who contested the PROD. Atbannett, "he's a billionaire" won't go far as an argument here, but if you can provide some evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (see WP:GNG for more explanation), that's what we're looking for. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROD, should never have been prodded as the deletion is not uncontroversial! (the bold is in the source) gidonb (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell that to the editor who proposed it, if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Israeli engineer, entrepreneur, and billionaire with a biography in The Marker financial daily, written by journalist Itamar Cohen. This biography is SIGCOV. It was not just added so the intro does not hold water. In addition, there is an impressive list of references at Hewiki, just one click away. gidonb (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, do you have evidence to say that he is notable, not the usual "he must be notable" as he is a billionaire. WP:THREE sources since that is the standard. Not paid for puff pieces. Independent secondary sourcing. The article has never been referenced since it was created? scope_creep^Talk 06:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never do "must be notable" so your question does not make any sense. The reference in the article is not a paid for puff piece. In fact all three references are RS. The TheMarker reference is the best. It's an independent biography (just like our article), in the financial newspaper of Israel's newspaper of record. You wrote Never been referenced as a BLP since it was created. No indication of significance. That's not serious. Your reaction, again, is not serious. We deserve better than that. gidonb (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as serious as I possibly can. Lets look at the references:

[7] I'm getting a 404 on it.
[8] This mentions the Nacht foundation, nothing really on the man himself.
[9] This article seems to be on his wife, whose a lawyer. I see no evidence that states its him explicity. It does state that he founded a charity.

Looking at the HU wikipedia references:

[10] This comes from a press-release.
Got a forbidden 403
Got another 403 forbidden.
[11] That is from a press-release announcing a new bank.
403 forbidden
[12] Apparently his former wife owns the Globes. That also comes from a press-release.

That is first 7 references on the hu wikipedia and there is nothing there that satisfies WP:BIO. So there is no WP:THREE references that show he is notable. I've got a vpn. I'll see if I can see those 403's and the marker reference. scope_creep^Talk 14:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See reaction below your comment. Reacting to all claims together. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to view The Marker, the ref in article and one of the two 403 that were blocked in the he wikipedia. The third one was paywalled as it caught up. The first one is a X of Y who is the richest list with Nacht worth 3.5billion. Doesn't inspire confidence to call it biography. Call it what it, probably a self-written profile by his publicist, light on detail. It doesn't meet the requirement on WP:BLP "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". The second one is not much better. All these fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These two biographies (link1 and link2) are by themselves more than sufficient to meet the General Notability Guideline. The claim that there is no identification of significance is clearly unfounded. This individual is a recognized businessman. For businesspeople, billionaire status inherently signals a level of significance far beyond that of owning two corner stores. Given the complete lack of merit in the opposing argument, perhaps consider withdrawing? gidonb (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He's a highly prominent businessman, co founder of Check Point, with extensive press coverage. For example, see [13] [14] [15] [16] . Whizkin (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination ranks high among the more ridiculous AfDs. Subject is very obviously notable and the references are in the article and nearby to show that. Nothing in the intro is correct. It looks as if it was written for another article, then the wrong article was nominated. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three references in the article at present, two of which are not about him at all. It's hardly fair to call this "among the more ridiculous AfDs", whatever you think of the notability of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source, so we will not miss it! gidonb (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there is not even the beginning of a case to delete this article. This AfD spits in the face of WP conventions. gidonb (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is coverage of this person [17], [18], and [19] are coverage about his activities, not so much about the person himself. I don't see much coverage in the article, the source analysis of the new sources above seems about right, just enough in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree b! Just like we carry Nacht's biography, two reliable sources do the same. These are comprehensive sources on the person. The links are: biography1 and biography2. gidonb (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article so now it has 7 8 sources. Please check again. Whizkin (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nacht is one of the most prominent Israeli High-Tech Industry entrepreneurs, co-founder of Check-Point company, one of the world's pioneers in VPN and firewall, and one of the world's leaders in computer security for over 20 years. He has established other successful initiatives, and he's a billionaire. Additional sources can be found in Google Scholar and Google Books. Tzahy (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then where the coverage that verfies it. This is an enclyclopeadia and this a WP:BLP article. The BLP policy stated "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. " Where are they. Its still below borderline. The fact he has founded a company isn't a notability criteria. Both of these sources were checked on a WP:BEFORE and nothing was found that could be considered a true secondary source. On google scholar it surfaced [20] which is an interview. On Gbooks there is lots of passing mentions that are not independent or in-depth. They don't stisfy the criteria for a WP:BLP. This biography1 is another puff-piece with no-byline and is an also interview. Is a paid-for article. I can't see the second reference. I will check it now with the VPN. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That second reference above is extremely poor financial report, looks and reads similar to the rest of these. You will need stronger references than that and shuffling to try and do WP:HEYMANN when the things don't add up is really poor. It won't stop it going back to Afd shortly. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, scope_creep, a question: Don't we have full access to billions of articles, including with paywalls in the Wikipedia Library ? Tzahy (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you ask that. I'm sure there is. I see your an isreali IT security guy. Is that the reason you voted !keep? scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indeed Israeli, but I do not work in IT security, and I'm not a computer expert (bad for me; otherwise, my economic situation would be a lot better). Still, I devour newspapers and am interested in many areas. I asked because you wrote you don't have access and should use a firewall, so I asked indirectly if it could assist us. p.s. I didn't check thoroughly for this discussion; I want to tell you what I know from my general knowledge. I only have a BA degree in history, and in my mandatory military service, I served in a simple and not technical job. Tzahy (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in sofware engineering. I was firewall guy for a wee while and we used checkpoint software before we could recruit somebody. It was best firewall kit you could buy at the time. Its wa security startup. There is a lot of history, close to 30 years on the man, or possibly more, but so far I'm not seeing much. It all seems to quite modern and publicist types material, lining up the questions to ask and so. If there is anything there, it will be from the 20-30 years years ago, period. Currently all I can see is a redirect at best. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you a specific article if you need access to it, and I have; it's not a big deal. I have a subscription to 8 newspapers and registered in a few more, which enables me to read 4-to six free articles every month. If you are an Apple guy, there is an option to give access to hundreds of paid newspapers for 13 dollars a month (I don't use this because I don't get along with Apple products. Tzahy (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a lengthy biography, and every sentence is properly cited to a prominent, reliable source, as far as I can see. Nothing is self-published or promotional. That's not something I think would be possible for a non-notable individual. I'd also like to note that the article has been significantly improved since its nomination. Whizkin (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: Stop bullying Israeli editors by overweight. Who care if you are an software engineer? Also a light reminder that WP:BLUDGEONING. I can't vote on this guy bcs I'm not sure he is notable or not. Btw I'm a Thai and Let other decide. Thanks. 1.47.5.51 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional detailed analysis of sources would be very helpful. People sniping at one another is, conversely, not at all helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Bellón López

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

Juan Manuel Bellón López is not notable. He is only interesting because his wife is the famous Pia Cramling. The only fact on this page which merits mentioning on Wikipedia is his five-time Spanish Chess Championships, a fact which can also be found on the page of his daughter, Anna Cramling. Every Grandmaster does not deserve their own page for being connected to actually notable grandmasters. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Awards, and Games. Just`Existing 04:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no chess person (rated at like 800) and the article has very little in the way of usable sources. But I'd be shocked if a GM didn't have enough coverage to get over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be a chess player who has achieved the highest FIDE title of Grandmaster ought to be enough on it's own, but when you also consider he is a five times national champion, and an Olympiad medal winner (chess's equivalent of the Olympics - the pinnacle of team chess), then of course he is an easy Keep. If this grade of player isn't notable enough for an article, then most chess players on wiki would need to be deleted. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources available on either the English or Spanish pages. Being a five time champion is impressive but not enough to guarantee notability without any secondary sources talking about it. Just`Existing 02:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. He's a Grandmaster, has played in 11 chess olympiads, and is five times champion of a strong chess playing country. It's ridiculous to say he's only known for his marriage to Pia Cramling. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a prime example of "internetism", the assumption that if it's not on the internet (or at least easily findable by google) then it's not notable. Bellon was at his peak strength from the early 70s to early 90s, which is why google doesn't turn up many results except in connection with his wife and daughter. But I can assure you that he was well known to chess players before the internet came along, and before he ever met Pia Cramling. Consider, for example, the results of a search of the Swedish magazine Tidsskrift för Schack - 147 hits, about half of them from the pre-internet days. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. Participants are arguing to Keep this article based on his biography but in AFDs, we need to see evidence of notability established by independent, reliable, seconary sources that can verify information in the article. If you want this article to be Kept, please locate and share sources, online or off, that can help with this process. Withough adequate sourcing, this BLP will be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes lack of significant coverages and need more sources. Xegma(talk) 05:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grandmaster, five time national champion, and frequent participant on the Spanish olympiad team makes Bellon clearly notable as a chess player on his own merits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per explanation by MaxBrowne2. It is true that the article, which is only one or two levels above stub quality, did not cite any of the normal sources. The way to fix this is not to delete the article, but to do some research and find and cite the sources. I have made a start on this by citing the Swedish chess magazine that MaxBrowne2 mentioned, to support the first of his Spanish national championship wins. Sorry for using a Swedish-language source, I did not see it in my favorite English-language source, the collected back issues of Chess Life. I would like to do better, but research into pre-internet sources takes time and effort. Sorry guys, it takes more than a negative result of a Google search to determine that an international sports figure is not notable. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheek

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

I believe the band fails notability. One of the sources listed would satisfy SigCov in my opinion, but the rest are trivial and a BEFORE hasn't turned up much. I opted to post here as opposed to PROD to get others' input, as a large number of source do seem to mention the band on the internet but almost all seem plainly trivial. Lenny Marks (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Lenny Marks (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found more coverage here by searching with their previous name (Nosebleeds) so I think they scrape through on WP:BAND.[21][22][23][24] Orange sticker (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep There's this in The Guardian and this in the East Anglian Daily Times. NME also seems to have a bit more stuff. toweli (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood Cottage

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and insufficient to be presumed notable by WP:NGEO. Suggesting redirect to George W. Reamer#Professional background, which has been done twice by two separate editors but being objected by an editor. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Japan, and California. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as notable - I performed a quick search for citations and added a couple books which mention the subject. I may also send an email to the Monterey County Historical Society to see what resources they have should this article be kept (and welcome anyone else doing so). DCsansei (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On an aside, was this listed as "Japan" simply because of the garden or is there a further connection? DCsansei (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCsansei:, by "mention" is it significant coverage? Reference bombing with "mentions" can't compensate for lack of in-depth significant coverage. It's just like if a really large slab of wood is sought after, a whole bunch of wood chips won't substitute it and that's basically what packing together a bunch of sources with a mere mention is attempting to do. I put it in Japan category based on "Architectural style(s) Japanese architecture". Graywalls (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment buildings that would otherwise not be notable often become so because of previous occupants. This of course will immediately trigger the knee-jerk reaction about the essay WP:INHERIT (which has tons of qualifiers and warnings about usage). We have many examples of buildings that became notable because of previous occupants, for example Bron-Yr-Aur, "best known for its association with the English rock band Led Zeppelin". The place and the people who lived there become "associated" ie. the place is famous because of the famous people associated with it. This of course needs to be backed up with sources, which is why INHERIT does not apply, so long as there are sources, there is nothing wrong with a place made famous by famous residents. -- GreenC 14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baitul Muqeet Mosque, Auckland

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

Unnable to find any actual coverage of the mosque beyond the story regarding the opening. A lot of search results come up with it but it just seems to be used as a back drop for articles talking about islam/mosques in New Zealand. Article can be redirected to Manurewa#Religion where it is mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islam in New Zealand, which already has the photo. I think that is a better redirect than Manurewa#Religion. Readers looking for info on Ahmadi mosques in NZ are more likely to go to the Islam article. Nurg (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per Nurg's comment above. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarecrow & Other Anomalies

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

Only source is to the publisher's website which lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Spain. C F A 💬 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this translation is reviewed here, which says (this is not the full content btw): "The only edition of Girondo's work in English, translated with admirable resilience by Gilbert Alter-Gilbert, Scarecrow is really several books: the full texts of Espantapájaros (Scarecrow, 1932) and Interlunio (Lunarlude, 1937), selections from his first and a later book of poems, the manifesto he wrote for Martín Fierro and cultural notes he contributed to the journal, all in less than a hundred pages each of English and Spanish. Even his final book, the untranslatable En la masmédula (1956) with its playful and constant fusions of language, is glimpsed briefly in the introduction." Alas only one review. So merge maybe, it's noted by Britannica as the only English work. We should probably have an article on Espantapájaros (far more notable) to which this could be merged as its translation but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a vote, merge (basically just add that it exists and the source above) to Oliverio Girondo, as the only English translation of his works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the review in Literature and Arts of the Americas, there is also another review in Translation Review [25] [26]. That makes two book reviews. James500 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 How long is the review? Do you know what issue it is in? Translation Review is on a WPL resource but I can't find any review for this in a search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: The text can be found here. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 Thank you! That one is not sigcov at 67 words so it doesn't much help our case here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the sake of consensus building, I would support a merge as well per WP:ATD for the reasons articulated by PARAKANYAA..4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mali, Moscow

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

One primary source in the article after 16 years. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mali–Russia relations almost all the embassies are not notable as they often don't have any reliable source talking about them, which in this case this. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Another embassy article created by a now-blocked user. Nothing really to merge. AusLondonder (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Suh

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not present how the subject is individually notable outside of his group as per WP:BANDMEMBER. Previously nominated last year for same reason and the result of the discussion was to redirect to NCT (group). Article was re-created on August 28 but the subject of the article still doesn't have independent notability. RachelTensions (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, South Korea, and Illinois. C F A 💬 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to NCT (group) Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 07:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the addition of an 'Other Activities' section make any difference to this decision? Wikimaker17 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether another Redirection is called for or if there should be another outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [27]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

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

Only very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([28]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious why you picked this season page out of all of them from 1902-03 to 1942-43. Technically there is nothing wrong with the article, it shows a historical table of what was then called an amateur league. However I believe the league did have good coverage in Mexican media. There maybe room for improvement, but in it's current form, I would combined all the league tables into one or maybe two articles. But historically, this league is part of the history of football in Mexico. So... also, how much WP:BEFORE did you do? I guess the coverage would be different in the 1940s due to WW2 and the political situation, so my bet is it's all about the offline sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are irrelevant anyway. It can’t be that significant if it’s getting 19 views per month either. All these seasonal articles should really be redirected to Primera Fuerza or deleted because there is barely anything in them in terms on content, which is why I picked this one because it has less content than the others, as well as barely any coverage. Azarctic (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primera Fuerza - possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Direct predecessor of the current Liga MX, there is a lack of sources but the notability exists. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the article in Spanish has literary sources on the history of Mexican football that seem credible to validate the information. Svartner (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources, and those in the Spanish-language article, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to be clear, deleting this article would also confer deleting every single "Primera Fuerza" season from 1902 to 1943. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this division is notable, and so are its seasons— important to note that it was the highest-level division in the country. Impossible for me to review and search all the Spanish-language offline sources, but the existence of sources such as Crónica del fútbol mexicano: Por amor a la camiseta and Historia General del Fútbol Mexicano and their usage as sources on the Spanish-language article suggest that they have material related to this specific season and the other seasons of this competition as well. Overall, it does us no good deleting this as it's clearly the highest level for football back then in Mexico, sets a bad precedent for football seasons in other countries too. The only reason this would be deleted is because it's hard to find offline sources, to dissect them, and to use them on Wikipedia. Which would be a shame. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And from experience, the RSSSF tends to be highly reliable for the tables of these older competitions. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see No consensus yet. I'll just add that we don't judge notability based on how many views an article gets per month but by whether reliable sources can demonstrate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable. Article should be improved. No one would propose deleting a 1940s England Division 3 table; nominations like this baffle me. Nfitz (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

758 Boyz SC

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

Redirect to Sint Maarten Premier League as I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the team. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Netherlands, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sint Maarten Premier League. New club, fails NORG, plus not enough context. Hopefully the target will be expanded. I have added the year of this club's establishment to the target. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what needs and redirect to Philipsburg, Sint Maarten, football clubs can change leagues. They should be recorded on the city page they are in and not the league article. Govvy (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to redirect this article until I saw that two different target articles are being proposed. Hopefully a consensus can emerge after a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in Sint Maarten. Killarnee (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiosko (Hendrix)

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

Fails GNG. One of the 2 sources provided is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Mexico. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I de-stubbed it. It might become a good article if written correctly. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, and thanks to User:Tbhotch for expanding the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Evil (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys)

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

I have been unable to find sources to satisfy NBOOK after searching on ProQuest, JSTOR, Newspaper Archive, and Google Scholar. I suggest redirecting to Super Mystery. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Enemies (novel)

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

I have not been able to find enough sources to satisfy NBOOK after searching Google News, Newspaper Archive, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. The secondary source on the article does not provide SIGCOV. I suggest redirecting to Super Mystery. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Train (novel)

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

I have been unable to find enough sources to satisfy WP:NBOOK after searching through Google Scholar, News Archive, JSTOR, and ProQuest, though I found a blog review. The article indicates a Nancy Drew game is based on the book, but I have not found secondary sources to verify this claim [29]. I suggest redirecting to Super Mystery. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches with 150 NCAA Division I FCS wins

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

Not seeing any sources suggesting this grouping meets the WP:LISTN as it is not covered by non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because I believe the NCAA's official career leaderboard for winningest FCS coached doesn't accurately reflect the most successful coaches at that level. (I believe the same issue applies to coaching leaderboards in other divisions.) What we now know as FCS didn't exist before the 1978 season (as I-AA). Before then, the original I-AA programs had either been in an undivided Division I or in Division II. In the early 1980s, a substantial number of conferences and programs were downgraded to I-AA, and movement between the various subdivisions within D-I (mostly from I-AA/FCS to I-A/FBS) and between divisions (most often D-II to FCS) has been pretty much constant. The NCAA defines an "FCS coach" as an individual who served as a head coach for at least 10 years at that level (whether in the I-AA or FCS era), but counts ALL wins credited to that head coach at ALL four-year programs where he served as HC—even if he coached at a program that wasn't in FCS, or at the same program when it was competing at a different level. — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and arbitrary number of wins. Also, the list's creator has admitted that they were trying to "right" a wrong nobody else perceives. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary inclusion criteria that doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesedi FM

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

Article about radio station with much unsourced content and lack of independant sources or significant coverage. On inspection one of the three sources appears to fail verification as well. It might be possible that the article could be merged into South African Broadcasting Corporation if, as is claimed in the lead, the station is a subsidiary of that organization, but I cannot find confirmation of this fact. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Africa. Lenny Marks (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NRADIO. National radio station with wide listenership. Coverage in WP:RS indicates notability in terms of WP:GNG. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

[39][40] (one of the largest radio listener bases in South Africa) etc etc. I got tired of finding sources (I’m on mobile) but there is a large amount of coverage Park3r (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buried in Time (novel)

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

I haven't found evidence to establish NBOOK after checking for reviews via ProQuest, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. I suggest redirecting to Super Mystery. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 05:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Resort (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys)

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

I haven't found evidence to establish NBOOK after checking for reviews via Kirkus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Newspaper Archive. I suggest redirecting to Super Mystery. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Rossiter

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

A before search does not show anything significant for this article. Does not pass GNG or NHOCKEY. Kline • talk • contribs 00:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not passes WP:GNG and also lack of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 05:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with academics and educators. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: NN hockey player with an ephemeral career in the low minors, fails the GNG and any iteration of NHOCKEY by a country mile. User:Sorable, whose equally short editing career mostly involved reverted edits and one revdel, would be up for a trouting at least if they hadn't walked away nearly a year ago. Good catch by the nom. Ravenswing 06:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Flibirigit (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]