Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 22	July 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Layne Harper

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

Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) WP:BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix, per WP:INTERVIEWS).
And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as an unnamed minor character in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to cite much better sourcing, or from having to have a much more neutral and objective writing tone, than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Vibrant heart of ... with a diverse cultural tapestry" is the first red flag. As expected, The Source (source #2) is literally the first hit and the only one in a RS. There's a rich blend of, sorry, lack of references for this individual. Nothing we can use to build a rich blend of an article with a vibrant heart. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And his photo is directly from Imdb. Red flag #3. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths and weaknesses (personality)

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

Essay - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is indeed a WP:ESSAY and therefore fails the second test of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences University of Ankara

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palamon Capital Partners

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

nonnoitable private equity firm - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable corporation with no sources except that they bought another company. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every business. I do complement the article's author, however. They did a wonderful job in formatting. Bluefist^talk 02:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong monad

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

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt (talk) 20:55, 16 July 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 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; a definition pulled from a research-paper with insufficient usage by others. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or TNT if someone has the expertise. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no even content worth merging. Tercer (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many mathematics articles do suffer from being written at the graduate student level. However, we are not here to judge people's prose, but instead to determine if the article meets our notability guidelines (in this case, WP:NMATH and/or WP:GNG). I'm able to find a good number of reliable sources that cover this subject, even modern ones, including "What makes a monad strong?" (2022) (see also: related conference presentation), "Scope ambiguities, monads, and strengths" (2017), "Arrows are strong monads" (2011), among other sources. Since editing can fix the issues raised here, and the subject is notable, the article should be kept, or at least not deleted wholesale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What you cite pretty much looks like primary sources. While these establish the existence of the subject, they do not establish its notability. An artcle cannot be based solely on primary sources. The article was tagged since 2022, but it was basically untouched since 2006 save formatting. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify' - trusting User:Red-tailed hawk that it may be salvageable. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely too technical for a general wiki, and to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading the article. It's sourced, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading- <chuckle-chuckle>, I can say the same about half of articles in philosophy (and probably math; didnt try:-) - Altenmann >talk 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Mehta

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

Fails the figure skating notability guidelines. Competed, but did not medal at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. Astaire (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Skating. Astaire (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this BLP. Let'srun (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSKATE. PROD was previously removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delaware, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gregorian

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is [[1]] which only covers the subject for a few sentences. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Winter Haven Christian School

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

Unsourced article; no independent sources with in-depth coverage found. Using AfD instead of PROD because PROD has recently been used to unsuccessfully delete this article. ❤History Theorist❤ 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I understand why the last PROD did not pass (per StAnselm's !vote) and would like to withdraw the deletion nomination.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Florida. ❤History Theorist❤ 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a 60-year-old high school, we'd expect some coverage and that's exactly what we find. Just a reminder that the sourcing does not have to be in the article to pass notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not look hard enough. I see why prod was kept and will withdraw afd. ❤History Theorist❤ 21:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Virgin Islands national baseball team

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

Unable to find any sources for this team establishing notability under the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, this team isn't even ranked by the WBSC per [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:DICDEF. It's not substantiated that the team does anything remarkable. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify the team exists; other than "restatements of the title", there is no content. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Physicists of Macedonia

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

I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might". Ldm1954 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping) EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jay Slater

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

This seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason you've given: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E. There has been a decent amount of news coverage in local weeks but he's now been confirmed as having died via misadventure that's likely to drop off very quickly now and it's not even WP:VICTIM. Fragglet (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies and Fragglet. A classic news aggregator piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I fear that this is shouting in the wind - we have too many articles like this so I'll be very surprised if Delete succeeds. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists but the multiple other articles of this standard lowers the subliminal threshold. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just passing grief porn of no lasting encyclopedic worth. No knowledge to share here, no decent analytical sourcing and Wikipedia is (or should be) WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wrong wrong wrong 78.145.76.106 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate, Mr. 78? Or Mrs. 78? Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't this article similar to that of Death of Nicola Bulley?... iirc, that was also nominated to be deleted?, but was kept... – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:L1amw90, there seems to be a lot more content in that article than in this one, particularly content pointing to a greater influence, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article contains a substantial amount of information about the police investigation and subsequent investigations into possible police misconduct during the case. Is there any indication that this situation has broader signficance beyond news coverage of a missing person who had accidentally died? – notwally (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Drmies and Fragglet. What is the encyclopedic importance or enduring notability of this article subject? To document a flash of news coverage surrounding one person's death? Almost all of the article seems like trivial details. We already ignore WP:NOTNEWS too much when it comes to news reports on crimes, and I don't think it is wise to extend that to accidental deaths as well. – notwally (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2024
Keep and not just because I started the original article, Disappearance of Jay Slater, but because I agree with L1amw90. There are many articles similar to this one which are still on Wikipedia. CitationIsNeeded (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CitationIsNeeded, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles like this on Wikipedia such as, Death of Nicola Bulley which was going to be deleted however was kept even though its in the same boat as this article as not having "encyclopedic notability", also why delete the article just because the search is over? If thats the case then that means many other missing persons pages should be deleted aswell due to that reason, and I can agree with you that tabloid journalists have milked the story and most likely in 2 weeks will be posting articles along the lines of "Jay Slater's mother uses gofundme money on booze!", ok i sidetracked a bit TLDR: Keep because there are many other articles similar to this that went thru nomination for deletion but are still up. User:IPhoneRoots 11:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, especially an accidental fatal fall. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards Keep as the coverage of this disappearance, death and the public reaction to it has been extensive to the point where it now feels like its entered the cultural lexicon. If it turns out coverage is not WP:NSUSTAINED then it may be delete-worthy in the future but I expect it will be the type of case that gets referred back to and compared to a lot. Orange sticker (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is very similar to the Death of Nicola Bulley. And his death is trending all around social media. Azarctic (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That other article is substantially about the investigation into police misconduct. Is there anything similar for the article subject here that involves details beyond merely the accidental death of a person? I do not see anything in the article in its current state to suggest that is the case. – notwally (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, the Guardia Civil had to pretend they stopped searching to deter vloggers. Darrelljon (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've experienced both stories from a UK media perspective. At the end of the day, it's just a sad case of someone having an accident in the mountains and the difficulties of finding them therein. Rightfully a media story at the time, at least at this time, there's no long lasting impact or public story, or anything extraordinary about it. Negatives outweigh the positives. Delete. RIP Jay. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think one thing is that the story has (unfortunately) moved outside of news coverage and into meme culture and maybe even urban mythology. I'm not inclined to go looking for links though because they're all in pretty bad taste. I doubt this story will go away quickly - multiple stories are still being published in the last 24 hours. As it says in WP:RAPID, we shouldn't rush to create articles but also shouldn't rush to delete them. I would just advise a pause on this one. Orange sticker (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including

Darrelljon (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are those similar though? All of them seem to be unsolved or were unsolved for a long period of time with sources from different decades, and/or had investigations into the police handling the cases. Does this particular article subject have any remarkable aspect about it as a case other than temporary news coverage? – notwally (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only Jay Slater made video calls whilst lost and disappeared with smartphone geographic coordinates available from early on. Unlike the others he was not camping/hiking/driving at night. The others were not subject to the social media reaction from the start. Darrelljon (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage is sensational. Though we can see some major newspaper contributing to the topic, I can’t see how it fulfils WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, subject fails WP:1E Vorann Gencov (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is paywalled, but a new article about the reaction around this case came out this morning. I think the social media section could be expanded. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/07/jay-slater-our-true-crime-poisoned-culture Orange sticker (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to the social media section, thanks for the suggestion. Bonus Person (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the incident has had far too extensive media coverage to warrant a deletion Kala7992 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this case is nothing but news, and WP:sensationalism. Feels like gender reversed incident of missing white woman syndrome. Nothing different, or notable about this garden variety missing/death case. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I'd !vote to delete were it not for the New Statesman article provided by Orange sticker, which indicates use as a WP:CASESTUDY. With that said, the keep rationales of Jattlife121, Darrelljon, CitationIsNeeded, IPhoneRoots, and Azarctic are probably subject to being invalidated, because the existence of articles about other disappearances is not relevant to whether this disappearance is notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite similar in notability to Death of Nicola Bulley and a BBC News about the subject was posted today. Sahaib (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as per Sahaib, it is wholly similar to the case of Nicola Bulley which was nominated for deletion twice for not having encyclopedic notability and a keep was resulted for both. Her death was an accidental drowning and Slater's was an accidental fall - both died in accidental circumstances. The rationale as per her deletion discussion was "An accidental death by drowning is a non event, not worthy of a WP article", but a Keep was resulted nonetheless. Rejecting WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTNEWS as per rationale for this, Jay Slater's case dominated the British media and social media, in particular the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, WP is not a newspaper but the constant coverage, not least in Britain but across the world too, perspicuously provides for proof of notability and bestows readers with WP:LASTING impact. ABC, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, TVNZ, RTÉ. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and this satisfies WP:GNG. Yes countless people go missing every year, but few disappear without trace and generate the media attention to worldwide extent. Most certainly reject that it is a WP:1E case. Though his body has been found and a court rules accidental fall, I wholly reject that this case is "likely to drop off very quickly" with sustained coverage still being reported here, here, here and here a week since his confirmed death. However, just to note I feel the article itself could be improved, such as adding a background section as seen here (if there is enough reliable sources to cover). Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the cases raised by Darrelljon have had some kind of afterlife, an imprint on the culture. This is not true of this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , as per all above. This is very similar to the case of Nicola Bulley, who coincidentally were both from the Lancashire area. I’m not sure why Nicola’s article is still up and Jay’s is proposed for deletion but Jay Slater’s case has gained media attention worldwide and is notable to be on Wikipedia in my opinion. There are so many missing person’s articles on here which are similar, so why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1300:259E:2037:382A:EADD:9BD (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a notable story in the UK. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sourcing in light of WP:NEVENT may help to bring about a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would suggest that this Wikipedia page / article should be retained as it provides a convenient source of all relevant information in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywhosaw (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yinka Williams (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Young man falls from cliff" is not notable for our purposes. This doesn't appear to be a criminal event, so NOTNEWS applies here. Sad that he's passed, but this also appears to be a memorial to the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be fair, I don't think the Nicola Bulley article is notable now that I look at it, but it's gone to AfD twice, so I won't bother nominating it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The disappearance and death of Jay slater was and currently is a large story with significant publicity and might I point out the number of similar articles eg: Death of Nicola Bulley Anonymous569 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Position

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

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners~~. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Internet, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the references are press-releases and unimportant awards ("top 100 places-to-work in the Portland area in 2016"). But [3], while not enough on its own, suggests there might be coverage. I agree with the nom that it is unclear whether any prose would be left in the article after cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Charlotte Observer story is coverage of a new location opening that would be excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question What or where is the "allegation" re: a relation to Roth? -- GreenC 03:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the coverage is excluded for notability under WP:ORGTRIV. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.

In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted ~~and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record.~~ TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [4]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. There seems to be a lot of non-policy based arguments for deletion of articles based on their current state, regardless of their notability, which is really the only concern here. "Keep" arguments like the user is biased are exactly as meaningful as "delete" arguments like a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates: zero impact. Full length stories on this assassination plot are currently found at all tier 1 news sources including The New York Times, AP AP, Reuters, CNN, and a "live updates" sub-site at NBC News. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or merge per MVBW. It sounds like this is already mentioned in the background section of the Qasam article, so it could also just be Deleted. However, there is not enough prose to support a full article at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there ends up being significantly more information released on this plot. Estreyeria (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough content to support an article yet. The details are fairly vague at this point, even with the above sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNC. Her Pegship (?) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.

In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.

If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.

That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani#Attempted retaliation by Iran. I took the liberty to merge the contents of the article in question into the target article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is No Consensus right now (Redirect, Merge, Keep, Delete AND Draftify options proposed). But I'm also not sure how much this article resembles the version that was nominated as already one participant has stated that they have merged content to another article prior to this AFD closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. There is nothing of substance in the news coverage. --Викидим (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Lucknow Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all listed today Bolierplate statement on each nom that comes down to 'my PROD was rejected, so this is the next step'. Please explain on each of these noms a broader statement as to why you're seeking deletion than the same rationale across all of them. They're also too numerous to ever come to a consensus on all of them, and at worst they will all be redirected to an omnibus article, not deleted. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because these are basically the same article, just about different non-notable subjects. There are hundreds of such articles created by a small bunch of users that all follow a similar pattern and that is why the same rationale works for each of them. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles about the trains from this list that I have checked appear to be mechanically generated from entries in some database. Their content is mostly identical and each article does not appear to warrant its own discussion. Essentially, we have here a timetable of Indian railroads in a representation that is very inconvenient to use. Indeed these articles can be combined into one table that pretty much will be a copy of the original database. Since a timetable for the Indian railroads must already exist somewhere, a better solution might be to redirect them to a single article about the timetable itself with no details about particular trains, for the latter the article in turn will contain a link to the original, always up-to-date, searchable database. The schedule of regular trains updates many times a year, so we really should not get ourselves sucked into maintenance of these articles. Викидим (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The timetable: [5]. This website is used in the references of nearly all Indian Railway service-related articles, whether notable or non-notable. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would have been more productive if @Arnav Bhate had bundled these nominations as I don't expect editors to be able to reply responsibly to every single one. That said, I do think the nomination statement is appropriate; it makes an assertion about lack of notability and offers a rationale. If the rationales are identical, that's an issue for discussion but not a reason to issue a blanket "keep." Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I do think the nominator should re-do these nominations as a bundle to facilitate participation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG. It may fall under WP:ROTM. We can instead redirect to a broader article that covers train services in India. Such an article will arrange the details in a more helpful and easy to maintain format. It will also retain the essential info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles about trains that are not special in any way. Per my comment above, Wikipedia is not a place to keep a non-searchable, non-official, never-up-to-date, and bloated with repeated text copy of a railway schedule database that already exists elsewhere and does not have these drawbacks (cf. WP:NOTDATABASE). --Викидим (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a train-line. Coverage such as [6] proves it exists, but doesn't demonstrate notability. Is East Central Railway zone a reasonable merge target? Walsh90210 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are about individual trains running the line, AFAIK. They can be merged together (or to some other article), creating a timetable. We do not create articles for each star in the sky, although very detailed databases exist that, just like timetables, can be used to mechanically generate some text for each line in the database. Unlike the sky, the railway timetable keeps constantly changing, creating a maintenance nightmare on top of these WP:ROTM concerns. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni–Gondia Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG and may fall under WP:ROTM. We can redirect it to a broader article that covers train services in India. This action could greatly improve the quality of the information and make it easier to maintain, while keeping the basic info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bapudham Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banka–Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangriposi–Bhubaneswar Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangarapet–Bangalore City Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore City–Nagercoil Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSR Bengaluru–Kannur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Udaipur Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Ramnagar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Palitana Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Muzaffarpur Avadh Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Saurashtra Janta Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Jaisalmer Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Hisar Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Haridwar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Barauni Avadh Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Gandhidham Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Delhi Sarai Rohilla Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bikaner Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet Kumar Jatav

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Lost Lok Sabha seat and being a mayor of Bharatpur Municipal Corporation doesn’t automatically confer notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Patna Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Jaipur Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandra Terminus–Bhavnagar Terminus Weekly Superfast Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asansol–Gorakhpur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asansol–Gonda Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arakkonam–Jolarpettai Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McGimpsey

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Being a councillor does not automatically confer notability, and criteria for GNG isn’t satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Northern Ireland, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amritsar–Nangal Dam Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambala–Amb Andaura DEMU

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subedarganj–Dehradun Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alappuzha–Kannur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmer–Hyderabad Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Varanasi Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article fails WP:GNG. The train service does not have historical significance and may not be notable since it lacks coverage in independent sources, raising concerns about being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should keep the articles only if they are helpful and have several reliable sources, which is not the case here. The article might fit better in a rail or transport database.--AstridMitch (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Sultanpur Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Patna Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Lucknow Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Gorakhpur Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Tri-Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Existence at the date of the timetable has been proven. Notability is not proven. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a WP:ROTM service. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the other articles prodded and deprodded at the same time to an article or list, per the deprodding summary. There is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopaedic content just because the article is not independently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Weekly Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala–Garjee Passenger

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala–Silchar Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Assam and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temple, Indiana

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

The cited history calls this Temple Station, which is what it looks like. I'm not seeing evidence it ever actually developed into a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Lord Howe Island

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

Unreliably sourced and non-notable, some guy made an unofficial flag, the majority of mentions online appear to be citogenesis. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's arguably a hoax, and it's non-notable either way. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a single reliable source for this. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROD declined for no reason, seems to be just a flag someone made up one day. Any mentions I found just drew from the Wikipedia page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, an unofficial and fictitious object. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of cities, towns and villages in the Netherlands

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

WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:ORP, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NOTNOTABLE and fork of List of municipal flags of the Netherlands. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to List of municipal flags of the Netherlands, in order to preserve the history for attribution, and add a hatnote at the target for the historical list. The updated list provides the same information as this gallery but also has sources and prose descriptions, which this article has been flagged as needing for several years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Saint-Hubert, Chavenon

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

There are no sources in the English Wikipedia. The WP:PROD was declined by Necrothesp who pointed to the sources in the French Wikipedia. I have searched each one of the still available ones (for most, these are archive copies, originals are long gone, some archive copies are also lost) for the word "Hubert" and did not find a single one that was related to the mansion. In particular, the first reference in French is to a thesis (almost 20 PDF files had to be downloaded, since the page numbers are not provided in the French article) apparently uses the word "Hubert" in 3 cases: "Alexis-Hubert Jaillot", "Hubert Macé" (twice). I therefore propose that, unless someone can point me to the errors in my source research (with chapter and verse), to Delete the article. Викидим (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chavenon as ATD. The only source I can find is this. Mccapra (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good find, definitely sufficient to create a section in the tiny Chavenon article. Technically, WP:SIGCOV allows for a single source, so a standalone article is possible, but still uncomfortable. Викидим (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Riehm

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG (specifically WP:SIGCOV), WP:NBASIC, or WP:FILMMAKER. There is no mention of any films actually made, and the only news coverage of the subject falls under WP:BLPCRIME.

Looking at the citations and external links, there is:

One dead link to a blog post
The first page of a CourtTV article, comprised of a WP:PRIMARY copy of his essay and four sentence summary of the events.
Pioneer Press article: a local newspaper with mentions of the subject where he is not the focus. It cites the CourtTV article for information about Riehm.
Star Tribune article: a local newspaper article largely covering the notable event. I would say this is the closes to WP:SIGCOV and furthest from WP:PRIMARY
Two additional dead links to news stories

Vegantics (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of the Tribe

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Unpublished books can be notable, but I could barely find any coverage of this book during WP:BEFORE. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Philosophy, Spirituality, and Psychology. Astaire (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceivers (Aiello novel)

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

Besides the review pre-existing review from the Pittsburgh post gazette in the article, I failed to find a second review that would satisfy WP:NBOOK. While this might look like an independent review at a first glance, it fails to be independent with this disclaimer here: "You have an indie book. We have several dozen talented reviewers. Let's just make it happen. Foreword offers honest, credible reviews of indie books, and we've been doing it for over 20 years." -1ctinus📝🗨 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a second review: Klett, Rex E. "The Deceivers." Library Journal, vol. 124, no. 13, Aug. 1999, p. 145. However, it is barely 100 words long, so YMMV whether this is "non-trivial" coverage. Astaire (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, there is no redirect target since the author does not have an article. Then, it comes down to whether there is enough source material to build an encyclopedic article about the book, and there is not. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

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}}.

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

Per an IP at WP:BLP/N, this article is "a complete PR/puff page with self-published sources, press releases, purchased awards, and myriad other issues. I looked up a bunch of policies to help clean it up but in the end I don't know what to do about it, given it's still just a complete mess, the entire title is fake, and is maintained by an SPA."

I can't help agreeing with them, mainly because I can't actually find a claim of notability that is backed up by RS. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a page based on self-published sources, there are several independent sources including official government pages (Albania and Lebanon) and you can't purchase a Kentucky Colonelship.

I have used his self published books as a reference only to the books name, not to any relevant information about the person himself.

The claim on notability is based on several important sources mentioning him, including the Government of Lebanon, Albania,the Armenian orthodox church, the city of Petrópolis in Brazil, the Global Imams Council and so on

If his titles are fake is not the point of this article, there is even a source saying that he is a fake prince and a fake martial artist

I am the creator of the page, I'm just not logged in.

2804:18:960:9EBD:88DD:14FF:FE9B:F760 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the edit-summary here the Kentucky Colonelship is also fake. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is NOT valid:

"he is not a Kentucky Colonel per https://www.kycolonelcy.us/list-of-kentucky-colonels what he actually did was join https://www.kycolonels.org/ which is not the same thing and something anyone can do"

The list ONLY has 1,000 colonels, absence in the list doesn't mean anything!

"The Kentucky Colonel List and List of Kentucky Colonels (same list with two names) is meant to provide website users with a diverse permanent listing of up to 1,000 Kentucky colonels from all walks of life for our book, 100 of those people will be highlighted with a single paragraph. The Kentucky Colonel List project does not replace the International Kentucky Colonel Registry (a planned program that was delayed in 2020 coincident with the pandemic) which was merged into an International Goodwill Ambassador Registry, with colonels listed for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. " Kentucky Colonel: Official History & Legacy of the Kentucky Colonelcy - List of Kentucky Colonels MasterKamalKhan (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to include the claim please provide a reliable source that is not self-published.

On second glance it says "The complete list of persons that have received the Kentucky Colonel Commission is lengthly to say the least; there are over 350,000 people that have received a Kentucky Colonel Commission from one of 55 of its 59 governors that have served the state since 1792" - I don't think being a Kentucky Colonel is something that should be in the article anyway. It's almost like adding that you were Time Person of the Year 2006. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The sources cited are utterly worthless as evidence for the existence of this title, never mind this individual's claim to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't say it is evidence of his titles, but it is evidence of notability, being received officially by the President of Albania and the President of Lebanon is very much note worthy. As I said, this article is not debating if his titles are real or not, I even used one source that says his titles are fake. Leo0274 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are numerous third-party sources from Lebanon and Jordan, as well as the Vatican, that recognize the Ghassanid history and royal house. The House is currently under review by the ICOC, which does recognize the House as Royal and is evaluating the awards. The Augustan Society has recognized the house and orders and history. The Marionite Church recognizes the House and history, as well as the current Arab Christian princes. Arbitration courts have rules the claim in valid and under international law is to be recognized. Comments so far show more ignorance than knowledge, and should not be the basis for deleting. There are sufficient third party sources to meet the Wikipedia requirements. Xianboyd (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured by his title on news vehicles of Brazil, Lebanon, UAE, UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, USA, Israel, Jordan, Canada, Iraq, etc. If that's not notability, I don't know what it is! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post: "...Prince Gharios El Chemor of the Arab dynasty of the Ghassanids, the only secular Christian leader from the Middle East recognized by multiple stakeholders, like governments (such as the Lebanese), Christian leaders (the Pope), the UN;..." https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/global-imams-council-builds-bridges-with-all-religions-642641 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the claim that the 'Prince' is recognised by the UN is complete fiction, for multiple obvious reasons starting with the fact that the UN doesn't involve itself in determinations of the legitimacy of hereditary titles, I think we can discount the Jerusalem Post piece as the regurgitated press release it appears to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, with all due respect, regardless of the UN recognition the article mentions the recognition by the Global Imams Council, the world's largest body of Muslim leaders. That alone is reason for notability. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any credible evidence that this 'Global Imams Council' actually was 'the world's largest body of Muslim leaders', that argument might just possibly be worth considering. As it stands, I can find nothing whatsoever which supports such a claim. The 'Council' seems to be almost entirely unnoticed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is from MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute): "The GIC is the world’s first and largest international non-governmental body of Muslim religious leaders from all Islamic denominations and schools, and advocates for peaceful coexistence, tolerance, and interfaith dialogue and for tackling extremist ideologies and militant Islam" Global Imams Council Condemns Iran's Attack On Israel | MEMRI MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the credibility of MEMRI as a source for anything of consequence, see e.g.[7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're obviously pro-Israel. But you cannot completely disqualify a news outlet because one wrong thing was found against it. If that's the case, all major newspapers would be disqualified. And again, there are two sources confirming the stated. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from the very same The Jerusalem Post: "The Global Imams Council, the world’s first and largest transnational nongovernmental body of imams..." Global Imams Council builds bridges with all religions - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com) MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the wikipedia article there was absolutely zero mention of a recognition by the UN, again, the wikipedia article is not about Gharios' claims to any titles, it is about the man himself. A section about a controversy on his claims is welcome to stay published, just find notable and reliable sources of this controversy.

You can't disqualify the Jerusalem Post, the Albanian and the Lebanese Governments, the Global Imams Council and others as not notable sources. And, if Gharios is a fake, that makes him even more notable for having fooled presidents Leo0274 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim Journal (America's largest Muslim newspaper): "...The Nation’s Mosque was surprised and pleased to have received an unexpected visit from His Royal High ness (HRH) Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Nu’man VIII, the international sovereign head of the Royal House of Ghassan" https://muslimjournal.net/muslim-journal-vol-46-no-46-jul-30-2021/ https://royalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/vol.-46-no.-46-july-30-2021.pdf MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Visiting someone isn't notable, and that's a blog, I'm not sure what we can do with this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If Anna Anderson can have a wikipedia page why can't Prince Ghassan? Granted Anna has more citations but her grift was at a much higher level than any alleged grift by Prince Ghassan so it stands to reason that would be the case. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that wikipedia may have their heart in the right place, but they are very arbitrary when it comes to what is or what is not fact. There have been a number of instances where I have tried to correct outright falsehoods published as fact in Wikipedia based on my insider knowledge of the events in question only to have my edits rejected because the alternative "facts" were deemed of higher value...see my roll tape tony edit. It's ok to have arbitrary standards, after all you are the community who builds and maintains wikipedia, but it's my opinion that this is just another case of wikipedia taking itself way too seriously. The fact that a relatively unknown Prince has come under such a coordinated attack advocating the deletion of this article should tell you there's something going on and you are being played. Having said all that, the actual content of the article can only be improved (which it would benefit from) to meet wikipedia standards if it is not deleted. ~~toolroom~~
Toolroom (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject seems to be a grifter attempting to portray themselves as some kind of VIP but there is little substance behind it when one digs deeper. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be specific? Could you provide refutation? MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used as a source a link from the presidential site of Albania about the official meeting with the president, and this article addresses Gharios as a Prince, the President also sent him a letter addressing him as Royal Highness, I tryed to link the web archive on the source, it is number source number 20, but it seems like it didn't work. Here is the link to the letter: https://royalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/img_9887.jpg?w=728

There is also the presidential decree on Lebanon authorizing the Royal House to operate in the country, you may arguee that this is not a recognition of his titles, but it is evidence of notability. The page has been edited to remove the decree and other sources that I originally posted from the Lebanese Government, here are some of them:

https://www.jabalnamagazine.com/sections-details.php?id=2057

https://www.annahar.com/arabic/article/580869-%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A3-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A

https://www.thomasschirrmacher.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/BQ0661_Statement.pdf

https://royalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/k3.pdf Leo0274 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenit News Agency: "... In an exclusive interview with ZENIT following his recent visits to the Vatican where he met Pope Francis and cardinals, Prince Gharios, the legitimate head of the house of Ghassan, the only Middle Eastern Christian dynasty still alive ..." https://zenit.org/2015/08/06/interview-prince-dirties-hands-to-help-middle-east-christians-have-one-concrete-voice/ MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arab Newspaper: "...today Prince Gharios bin Al-Numan is at the head of the Ghassani royal house as the legitimate heir to the royal family..." https://alarab.co.uk/%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%84%D9%83-%D8%BA%D8%B3%D9%91%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actuall (Spain): "...Currently, the heir and head of the Ghassanid Royal House is Prince Gharios and he tells Actuall about his great challenge: to protect millions of persecuted Christians in the areas where his family ruled." https://www.actuall.com/entrevista/persecucion/el-ultimo-principe-arabe-cristiano-mi-gran-mision-es-despertar-la-conciencia-de-occidente/ MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea (Germany): "The social scientist Prince Gharios of Ghassan" https://www.idea.de/spektrum/es-gibt-bei-muslimen-hass-gegen-juden-und-christen MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese leading newspaper An-Nahar "(President) Aoun received, in the presence of MP Dr. Naji Gharios, the delegation of the "Royal House of Ghassani Sovereign Society" headed by Prince Noman Gharios..." https://www.annahar.com/arabic/article/580869-%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A3-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official website from the President of Albania: "President Nishani hosted Prince Gharios El-Chemor of Ghassan Al-Nu'Man VIII" https://web.archive.org/web/20170817023304/http://president.al/?p=43487 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official agenda of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Turkey): "... His Holiness the Patriarch accepted the hearing: Theophil. Evangelical Bishop Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, of Germany, Adesim. Pastor Mr. Behnan Konutgan, and H.E. Prince Gharios of Ghassan Al-Nu ̓ Man VIII..." https://fanarion.blogspot.com/2016/07/13-2016.html?m=1 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentleman's review (Hungary): "Exclusive interview with His Royal Highness Prince Gharios El Chemor Al-Nu’man VIII, Head of the Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan " https://gentlemansreview.hu/royalty-is-about-serving/ MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We do not cite random blogs. We do not cite pdfs hosted on random websites. And we don't cite anything that merely repeats the title a man has given himself as evidence that he is a legitimate holder of that title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Wikipedia has authority to determine if a title is real or not. We are discussing notability and here you will find more than enough independent third-party news outlets, official websites of Bonafide entities, political and religious leaders that recognize him and clearly consider him notable enough to officially acknowledge his existence.

According to the cited Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.."

"Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs)."

I presented here at least 10 (ten) sources that follow the aforementioned guidelines MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, wikipedia does not judge notability based on what a person is or isn't, tiles or otherwise. We need articles about the person, not simply having their name mentioned in articles about other things... You've failed to give one article that is about this person in a reliable source, only having name drops in various things. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Augustan Society, American's leading Chivalric, Genealogical, Heraldic, Nobiliary, and Historical Society, founded 1957. Recognizes his claims: https://www.augustansociety.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&pageId=473 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Evidencia (Brazil): "...the wedding of H.I.R.H. Prince Gharios El Chemor..." https://portalevidencia.com.br/coluna/sidinho-ramos/841-ponto-chic.html MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump, is there a way to see if the users bombarding this discussion are connected accounts? --164.64.118.102 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, with all due respect, I'm posting the individual news outlets and official websites so they can be addressed individually. I apologize if looks like I'm "bombarding" the discussion. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ra'i (Jordanian Governmental newspaper founded in 1971) "Prince of the Ghassanids Gharios visits Um-Aljimal..." أمير الغساسنة (غاريوس) يزور (أم الجمال الأثرية) | صحيفة الرأي (alrai.com) MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ra'i (Arabic: الرأي; lit. 'The Opinion'), also spelled Alrai, is an Arabic daily newspaper in Jordan. The Jordan Press Foundation, owner of the Al Rai, is government-owned. It has been regarded as Jordan's newspaper of record.

A newspaper of record is a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent; they are thus "newspapers of record by reputation" and include some of the oldest and most widely respected newspapers in the world. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church: "HIS HOLINESS ARAM I RECEIVED PRINCE GHARIOS EL-CHEMOR OF GHASSAN AL-NU’MAN VIII" https://www.armenianorthodoxchurch.org/en/archives/22619 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabalna Magazine (Lebanon): "... Prince Gharios Al-Numan Al-Shammar announces on the eighth of next May in Beirut, the launch of the branch of the Ghassani House Association (or Ghassanids) in Lebanon in the presence of a crowd of stakeholders" https://www.jabalnamagazine.com/sections-details.php?id=2057 MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official website of the International Sports Hall of Fame: "His Royal Highness Prince Gharios is the Sovereign Prince of the Arab Dynasty of the Ghassanids, ..." https://events.sportshof.org/sportshof-2022-inductees-prince-gharios/ MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Tribuna de Petropolis (Brazil) "List of nominees for the title of Petropolitan Citizenship 2016:

Prince Gharios de Ghassan Al-Nu'man VIII," https://amp.tribunadepetropolis.com.br/noticias/sessao-solene-da-camara-comemora-os-174-anos-de-petropolis MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Martial arts, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MasterKamalKhan read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You are doing yourself no favours by spamming this discussion with unformatted URLS and bold-face text. If the subject is notable, this can be demonstrated through a few (probably no more than three) high-reputation independent reliable sources discussing the Prince. Not interviews with him (we attach little significance to interviews with regards to establishing notability), not articles about him meeting some dignitary or other but articles discussing him, in depth. Article in credible sources, not websites that appear to publish flattery for a fee. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I've presented 14 (fourteen) news sources that are considered valid sources by Wikipedia. Just refer to them and you'll see their Wikipedia pages. I'm very sorry but your position disqualifying all the sources without presenting any valid arguments is absurd! Obviously, if he got awards (you have to prove that they were paid, since there's not even a single suspicion published anywhere) like the Honorary citizenship of Petropolis, or the International Sports Hall of Fame! You are literally accusing Evader Holyfield, Jason Statham and Royce Gracie of paying for the award??? Obviously, if he's officially meeting with heads of State and Religion being recognized by his titles, he's notable! Can anyone easily meet those dignitaries? MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability has been demonstrated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why the following sources are not valid?

1. Jerusalem Post (Israel, founded in 1932)

2. Muslim Journal (America's largest Muslim newspaper, founded 1960)

3. Zenit News Agency (Vatican, founded in 1997)

4. Al-Arab Newspaper (Arab world, founded in 1971)

5. Actuall Portal (Spain)

6. The Lebanese leading newspaper An-Nahar (founded 1932)

7. The Gentleman's review (Hungary)

8. Newspaper Tribuna de Petropolis (Brazil, founded 1902)

9. Idea Portal (Germany)

10. The Official website from the President of Albania

11. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church

12. The Official agenda of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Turkey)

13. The Official website of the International Sports Hall of Fame MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are valid, but they only mention him in passing, we need article about this person, not simple portals, photos or church websites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used as a source a link from the presidential site of Albania about the official meeting with the president, and this article addresses Gharios as a Prince, the President also sent him a letter addressing him as Royal Highness, I tryed to link the web archive on the source, it is number source number 20, but it seems like it didn't work. Here is the link to the letter

There is also the presidential decree on Lebanon authorizing the Royal House to operate in the country, you may arguee that this is not a recognition of his titles, but it is evidence of notability. The page has been edited to remove the decree and other sources that I originally posted from the Lebanese Government

You can argue that none of that proves his titles are real, but you can't say it is not notable. The article is not about Gharios being Prince of Ghassan, the article is about the mand himself, add a section mentioning the controversy on his royal claims (if there is enough notable evidence of this controversy) Leo0274 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal communications cannot be cited on Wikipedia, we require published sources. Even if it could be verified (it can't), a letter from the President of Albania would be of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it was published on the Official website from the President of Albania: "President Nishani hosted Prince Gharios El-Chemor of Ghassan Al-Nu'Man VIII" https://web.archive.org/web/20170817023304/http://president.al/?p=43487 and it may easily be verified MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, being officially received by the President of Albania and having the meeting oficially publish in the Presidency website is not notable enough? We need to stablish objective parameters for what notability means. A presidential decree on Lebanon (or any other country) is quite notable. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church seem pretty notable. Leo0274 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Xianboyd has a COI with the subject article and others. I have opened a COI discussion here D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reliable and independent sources demonstrating Prince Gharios's notability. The main criticism seems to be "it sounds fake" without any evidence that such is the case. Unless the reputable sources can be shown to be falsified, I agree for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:4C84:1724:8060:7BCB:2538:C39D (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Mere mntions of the name and title does not constitute WP:GNG to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing the validity of his titles or claims, but I presented several inarguably notable sources about him. You are just ignoring it. And if his titles are fake and he is a con artist, that makes him even more notable Leo0274 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to say, mere mention of the name and title (I did not argue about the validity of the title) is not equivalent to significant coverage. He is mentioned, but not covered significantly. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Delete Wikipedia is not the place for this ludicrous sycophantic nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! Prince Gharios is an internationally respected personality, receiving honours from several nations, the Holy See and the United Nations. He is received in audience by presidents, kings, high nobility, patriarchs and the Pope. Notable scholars confirmed the validity of his claim and titles. He is using his orders of chivalry not for personal purposes, but to raise funds for charities, supporting refugees and persecuted Christians in the Middle East. The Royal House of Ghassan is accredited to the U.N. ECOSOC and the Government of Lebanon, where his family is considered as princely and one of the most noble of this nation. Listen to the facts and the experts and not to some wannabe-debunkers and their fake-news! 2A02:8071:5330:78A0:8BE:3587:6509:FE (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "The Royal House of Ghassan" is accredited by UN ECOSOC is completely bogus. The letter is in the JabalnaMagazine source given elsewhere in the discussion. It clearly states that the organization "Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan Inc" has been given consulatative status whatever that means. This doesn't mean accredation or even recognition, it's just that Mr Gharios has registered a company with that name, hence the "Inc" at the end. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be deleted because it is true and legitimate. There are many people out there who may not like Prince Gharios and are doing all their best to have the page deleted. I vote that the page is real and should not be tampered with. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Fawaz (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you claim on your user page to have been "Knighted by Prince Gharios", [8] I suspect we'd be best advised take your comments with a pinch of salt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this article stay intact. I have reviewed and am familiar with the truth and accuracy of information provided. Exit91gal (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy instead. AfD discussions are not votes, and they aren't settled through endorsements from accounts created especially to participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies demands notable sources, and I (and others) presented several, you are just ignoring them all Leo0274 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken! read Wikipedia article about consultative status It is YES an accreditation and the process and the committee checks wat's the organization is about. Or check the UN website here United Nations Civil Society Participation – Consultative status MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because "source: trust me, bro" is not a valid basis for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also said this before: the wikipedia article is not about Gharios' claims to any titles, it is about the man himself. A section about a controversy on his claims is welcome to stay published, just find notable and reliable sources of this controversy.

You can't disqualify the Jerusalem Post, the Albanian and the Lebanese Governments, the Global Imams Council and others as not notable sources. And, if Gharios is a fake, that makes him even more notable for having fooled presidents Leo0274 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really?!?

Could you please explain why the following sources are not valid?

1. Jerusalem Post (Israel, founded in 1932)

2. Muslim Journal (America's largest Muslim newspaper, founded 1960)

3. Zenit News Agency (Vatican, founded in 1997)

4. Al-Arab Newspaper (Arab world, founded in 1971)

5. Actuall Portal (Spain)

6. The Lebanese leading newspaper An-Nahar (founded 1932)

7. The Gentleman's review (Hungary)

8. Newspaper Tribuna de Petropolis (Brazil, founded 1902)

9. Idea Portal (Germany)

10. The Official website from the President of Albania

11. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church

12. The Official agenda of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Turkey)

13. The Official website of the International Sports Hall of Fame MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any RS backing up notability. Seems to be a concerted campaign both before this AfD and during it (socks and SPAs) to get this person an article. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before: So, being officially received by the President of Albania and having the meeting oficially publish in the Presidency website is not notable enough? We need to stablish objective parameters for what notability means. A presidential decree on Lebanon (or any other country) is quite notable. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church seem pretty notable. Leo0274 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Read GNG. Millions of people are "officially received" by presidents or are subjects of presidential decrees. They count for nothing unless independent secondary sources are discussing those meetings in depth. Anything published by the government about these governmental activities is obviously not independent. Same goes for any other org, like the Armenian Orthodox Church, that has interacted in any way with the subject: not independent = what they say is worthless for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really preposterous! What's notable then? Sorry, that's pure nihilism! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Terrible alleged references, fails WP:BIO, Total WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Leo0274 has an undeclared COI with the subject of this discussion. On this Reddit thread(archive) they state "Me and the Prince are coproducing a YouTube channel and online classes about monarchy, and I'm his secretary. The knighthood is for these services and for my efforts on the monarchist movement" D1551D3N7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not invalidate what I said Leo0274 (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear vanity page with no claim to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could you possibly refute the 15 sources cited here? MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly NONE here is even reading the sources provided. I sincerely don't know why wasting everyone's time PRETENDING that there's a debate. You're just, nihilistically denying sources that are valid by Wikipedia itself. But clearly you made up your minds so go ahead and delete the page, but please don't pretend that this is an honest procedure sine you don't even read the articles provided or you'd have, at least, pretending you check anything. It's really sad... MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as sad as writing your own Wikipedia page or trying to revive some kind of link to a royal family that hasn't existed in 1400 years and then making not one but THREE "Equestrian Orders" and giving yourself the title of "Grand-Master" 😂 D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are...? MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why I am Reverend Dr. D1551D3N7 Phd MISSP MBA MS MA of the House Baratheon First of His Name, King of the Andals and the First Men and Lord of the Seven Kingdoms. Colonel of Kentucky. Time Person of the Year 2006. Grand Master of the Royal Imperial Equestrian Order of Dinglebats. Lord of the Manor Pennythorne Scotland.

And you are...? Mr Gharios I take it? D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is really sad are single-purpose accounts barging in with no notion of Wikipedia's notability and civility standards, and no interest in learning them. Once you actually read those standards, we can go from there. The main one here you seem either not to understand or purposefully ignoring is WP:GNG, which holds that a subject is notable if they have received "significant coverage" in multiple independent, third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Ravenswing 00:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that simply by "wishful thinking" you seem to discredit sources that are perfectly valid to other Wikipedia pages. None of you are even reading the sources! It's really shameful! Again, go ahead and delete it and don't waste anyone's time pretending to be honest and unbiased! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have multiple sources that are each reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth.
1. JPost is a one-sentence trivial passing mention and almost certainly just parroting a self-description anyway N.
2. Muslim Journal is another trivial passing mention regurgitating Masjid Muhammad's (primary, non-independent) description of his visit, written by an employee of Masjid Muhammad N.
3. Zenit does have some secondary background info on the subject, but is predominantly interview-based and thus primary and non-independent.
4. Al-Arab has a lot of details on Ghassanids but nothing more than a single sentence on Gharios; obviously content from Gharios himself is not secondary or independent N.
5. Actuall is a pure Q&A interview; see previous N.
6. An Nahar has a trivial passing mention of Gharios N.
7. Gentleman's Review is another Q&A interview N.
8. Tribuna is a simple namedrop N.
9. Idea isn't accessible but looks to be simply stating what Gharios said at a conference rather than anything about him.
10-13. The official websites of orgs that received, recognized, awarded, or otherwise interacted with Gharios are not independent sources N.
A reminder that a source can be perfectly valid to use on Wikipedia but not acceptable to use for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, most people here aren't going to dig through 15 different sources. I suggest you point out WP:THREE solid sources that you think best demonstrate notability, so the sourcing can be judged on quality rather than quantity. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretender to a 1000 yr old defunct kingdom, is a new one at AfD. This is vanity spam, the individual is in no way notable. Sourcing is largely in un-RS as explained. We have confirmation of existence, but not notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gnews shows two press releases, Gsearch is straight to his website, then social media, then an astrology website. This wikipedia article appears to be used as PROMO, to help get higher Gsearch rankings. I'd have tagged this A7 or G11 or... multiple criteria for non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weren't the Ghassanids a Roman client state? Being "prince" of a kingdom that hasn't existed in more than a millenium isn't really a claim of notability... Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per JoellJay's source analysis, none of the sources presented so far establish notability. I did my own search and did not find any significant coverage of this person, only social media and the occasional passing mention. CodeTalker (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

OneTax

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

I can't find anything about "OneTax" other than records of a company with that name (which isn't what the article is about) and some self-published books which mostly seem to be copying from this article. The online references also don't mention OneTax (I couldn't check offline sources). As a whole, the article seems to just be general tax information. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to single tax, surely.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure such a redirect would be necessary, since from my limited understanding of what the OneTax article is saying, it isn't equivalent to single tax. If it was two words (One Tax rather than OneTax) I'd agree, though. (And also, looking at the page views for OneTax, I don't think such a redirect would be used particularly frequently.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. This appears to have been a policy proposal that found no traction; the references seem to be unrelated to the topic (i.e. the definition of "revenue-neutral", rather than content about OneTax being revenue-neutral). I can't find a website for the proposal, or a single reference that even mentions it; it seems indistinguishable from a hoax. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every random proposal is deserving of a Wikipedia page. This idea doesn't seem to have been taken seriously or reported on. I think a redirect wouldn't be worthwhile due to the reasons spelled out by Suntooooth. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of AeroLogic destinations

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

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

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

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only source provided here is literally just three links to the company website. WP:NLIST is failed for the same reason.

Even as a WP:SPLITLIST this has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which it clearly does not. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Germany. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow in the Mirror

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

Ultimately, this novel fails WP:NBOOK because I was unable to find multiple reviews of the book. The only review I could find is here and here, but it appears that the second review is a blog, and thus fails WP:NBOOK, so if somebody is able to find a second review I will withdraw the nomination, but it seems unlikely. The novel is really obscure—for example, it only has one review on goodreads. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is two sentences, and not exactly something that holds much weight. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : I can only find the Publisher's Weekly review; there's a book by another author from India with the same title, it comes up quite a bit actually. Regardless, we don't have enough for notability with only one review. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not seen that the nom found one other article reviewing the book; I have found this [9].Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the reviews given by the nom and the PW review above, we have two reviews, barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia men's national softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Softball, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any WP:SIGCOV as well. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge?) as this is the predecessor of the Czech Republic men's national softball team per [10] and [11]. C 679 16:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beamable

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

Most if not all articles about Disruptor Beam and Beamable are simple announcements that fail WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The article itself appears to fail WP:NCORP without significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roc City Hoops Classic

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sources here originate from the participating schools and are primary, and a check didn't find much more than some routine game recaps with the event being only mentioned in passing, such as [[12]]. Appears to be just a routine regular season game. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Basketball, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's basketball. A Rochester sports blog says There’s something notable about the game officially known as the Roc City Hoops Classic [13], but there needs to be more than their say-so to keep the article. There is enough local coverage to mention this on St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's basketball, but I don't see enough to keep a stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SriLankan Airlines destinations

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

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

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline and thus aren't independent of it. The only sources provided here are the company website, Aeroroutes (an enthusiast blog based on data from the company website) and a press-release - realistically the company is only ever going to be the source for the flights it operates. WP:NLIST is failed for the same reasons.

There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

Whilst there is a paragraph of text content on this page, the information in this is already included entirely on the page about the airline. As such there is nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Sri Lanka. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daryll Meggatt

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

Fails GNG. A search in the archives found no SIGCOV just mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Douglas Berardo

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

None of the sources here are ones I know to be reliable, and most appear to be small/local coverage. Nothing else here suggests an NBAND pass. One of his albums is already up for a separate AfD as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New York, and Rhode Island. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Depression is reliable source. It is a highly respected music magazine. MarySue Twohy is program director at Sirius XM. Folk Dj is a international organization with a radio station It's part of Folk Alliance International. I believe he meets the criteria for having a single on national music chart if you consider Folk Alliance International https://www.folkradio.org/ Currently his new record is currently #24 on this chart. Two of his vidoes for singles were reviewed by Americana Highways, another respectable music publication although they are not listed in this article. The festivals that he won or was finalist are national competitions Lyle Lovett and Nanci Griffith were finalists at Kerrville. Most of the other references such as who he performed with were added to support a statement as being true. I agree it needs to be updated, but I not deleted. Performer Research (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Folk Alliance International would be considered a valid chart as I would assume it falls under SINGLEVENDOR. No Depression should be reliable and Americana Highways is as far as I know (bit surprised to see neither listed at RSMUSIC), but it's still a bit limited. This could be turned around though. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you could link to the Americana Highways articles and any others you bring up that aren't already present. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am not sure if FAI would be a single vendor. I am not quite understanding the definition. I am looking further into it. I am in the process of updating this page. It will take me a few days since it has not been updated in quite awhile. If there are other suggestions on making this page more compliant, I welcome them. Thank you. Performer Research (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life with Elsie

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

Article with flowery language for a non-notable memoir that fails the notability guildelines for books. No reviews or other mentions online that I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS which for me are more or less equivalent: we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable publications, most likely book reviews, but I couldn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only conclude that this book is self-published. "Briarwood Printing" is indeed a printing company, not a publisher, and seems to currently specialize in printing stickers. I don't find the book in any libraries holding it, and there is one copy available used on Amazon. Lamona (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It comes nowhere near to passing the relevant standard. The massive list of "references" is pure spam, since they predate the book: a local news story from 1949 cannot be evidence of the noteworthiness of a book published in 2006. This looks more like someone pasting their family genealogy notes into Wikipedia than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article. If there's not a personal COI through the author's family, there might be a professional one through his employer. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se

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

Non-notable dissertation; there is nothing independent, like a review, that mentions it anywhere. I suppose the closest notability guideline is WP:NBOOK or WP:TEXTBOOKS, and it doesn't pass either. Has previously been de-PRODed by article creator. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Biology. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's another dissertation by the same author, created by the same user, that's just as non-notable:

Delete both Of all the things that would have to happen before we can entertain a separate article on a single publication, demonstrated enormous public recognition would be the first. These ain't no annus mirabilis papers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of secondary coverage by RS, and Wikipedia isn't a place to post summaries of decades-old dissertations. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both don't even attempt to demonstrate notability. Note that the user has been blocked before for insisting on creating pages about non-notable people. Tercer (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user has also created several articles on the books (whose notability I also question) written by James A. Frost, the father of the person who wrote this dissertation. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I PRODed this when it was first created, but didn't want to fight it when the creator de-PRODed it. Reasoning above matches mine.— Moriwen (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. We have no evidence of WP:NBOOK notability such as would be provided by multiple independent in-depth published reviews of these works. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It is exceedingly rare for theses to be notable as publications in their own right. Occasionally, they can be cited in an article about the topic that they address; if the author is notable, then mentioning their thesis is a standard part of a biography. But a PhD thesis is not going to be an article-worthy book in itself, outside of exceptional circumstances that do not apply here, and this holds even more strongly for master's theses. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. The fact that these articles do not meet the present notability guidelines of the English Wikipedia, of course, precludes them from existing here -- but it's really hard to morally justify feeding things into the shredder that clearly took as much time and effort (and produced an outcome so well-written and succinct) as these did. jp×g 🗯️ 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much evidence of effort having gone into these pages at all. One of them is three lists of bullet points, including uninformative glurge like "The study provided valuable insights" and vague speculation about how these "research insights" could somehow help develop new medicines. The other is more of the same ("several practical applications across diverse fields", "seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs"). Honestly, I wonder if these pages came straight out of an "AI". XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me take a look at the actual dissertation PDF then. jp×g 🗯️ 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax (WP:G3).

The introduction section of the PDF says explicitly that the thesis being tested was to attempt to replace sulfur with selenium in biotin in order to better understand the extent to which selenium could substitute for sulfur in metabolic pathways. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, which only talks about analyzing biotin itself.

Most concerning are the methods of the dissertation as described in the article. It mentions using chromatography and mass spectrometry, which I feel like at least implies GC-MS, but certainly and necessarily entails MS. Well, the dissertation has paper chromatography and no mass spectrometry at all. The only analytical instruments mentioned whatsoever in the dissertation are a gamma scintillation spectrometer, a radiochromatogram scammer, ion exchange columns for paper chromatography, bioautograms, and weighing equipment (not specified).

Based on the outright fabrication of major details of the dissertation, the vapidity of the conclusions drawn therefrom, and the rather recognizable bullet-point format of GPT output, this article is a straightforward WP:G3 speedy-deletable hoax. Perhaps an even more pernicious thing, hitherto undifferentiated by the speedy deletion criteria, but I will nonetheless do so myself: a "slophoax". jp×g 🗯️ 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I will note here that mass spectrometry is an extremely expensive and high-precision analytical technique -- it is absolutely inconceivable that it could be carried out in the course of some research and then not commented on once in a paper published from that research. The only remotely plausible explanation, when combined with the slop formatting and the other questionable claims made in the article, is that it was falsified. jp×g 🗯️ 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other article, allegedly based on this:

The enzyme was expressed in Escherichia coli, purified using affinity chromatography, and crystallized for structural analysis.

No it wasn't: all of the Cpase was obtained from a gene in B. stearothermophilus inserted into (and expressed by) P. pastoris. There's no way you could confuse this with E. coli. The paper does not mention E. coli. The only way you could possibly write this sentence is if you were making stuff up and hadn't read the paper.

The part about affinity chromatography is also false, per p33 of the paper: "Thus affinity chromatography did not appear to hold much promise".

The entire "applications" section is nonsense: "Structural Analysis Techniques: The methodologies utilized in the dissertation, such as X-ray crystallography and molecular modeling, serve as essential points of reference for researchers engaged in similar structural investigations of other proteins and enzymes." None of this means anything. "The methodologies utilized" here refer to -- I mean, computers were utilized in the dissertation too, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is an "application" of it. The methodologies and discoveries outlined in Frost's dissertation can seamlessly integrate into academic courses and training programs within biochemistry, microbiology, and structural biology -- what???

This article, too, is a slophoax, and needs to be speedily deleted as such. jp×g 🗯️ 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On multiple grounds. And take action against any editor deliberately putting in hoax material. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on grounds of "the author didn't even read the first page of the dissertation to begin with, and made up stuff". Still baffled that it is mentioned nowhere that selenium-75 is supposed to replace sulfur in biotin, even though that's, like, the whole point of the thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting page 1 of the introduction: This thesis was undertaken in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the penetration of the sulfur metabolic pathways by selenium. Specifically, an attempt was made to determine if selenium could replace sulfur in biotin synthesized by Phycomyces blakesleeanus. (emphasis mine)
Nowhere is "sulfur" mentioned in the body of the article. The author clearly didn't read the paper and made up the whole summary (most likely with ChatGPT). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield County Government Complex

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

Utter failure of the WP:GNG with a complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was removed with no rationale. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chesterfield_County,_Virginia#Government Reywas92^Talk 02:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wallis-Brown

AfDs for this article:

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

Article makes no claim to notability. Career section reads like a CV - moving from position to position - but does not outline any accomplishments in any of the roles, notable or otherwise. No significant coverage - the references are largely mentions in passing/regurgitated press releases. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article has just been undeleted at the request of Ofalk88 (see WP:TH#page about Michael Wallis-Brown is deleted) Given the content of the original nomination, I doubt if they can show notability, but we should give them a chance to find sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just querying how that would work? Given that Ofalk88 has a conflict of interest, they should not edit the article themselves; certainly not to the extent of adding content that would presumably signify notability. Given the lack of sources found at the previous AfD or my own WP:BEFORE, I can't see anyone else adding much, either. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason a declared paid editor with a declared CoI should not edit a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is one of the purposes of AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. The current version doesn't indicate what his claim to notability is. Maproom (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really any point in draftifying, particularly not at the request of a conflicted editor. I did a thorough WP:BEFORE search during New Page Review which resulted in the first AfD, and I found nothing to qualify this WP:MILL business executive for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I also reviewed all sources in this WP:REFBOMB and found no WP:SIGCOV in any of them; all coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Harder

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

By longstanding consensus, a state beauty title (in this case Miss New Jersey) isn't notable in itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time. Her win is a one time event, of local significance. Not enough significant coverage for a Wikipedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry of the World

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

I don't want to see this gone as I have found it a very useful site but I can't see how this passes WP:NWEB/WP:GNG. The references currently in the article are all primary/unreliable, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything (however the genericness of the name makes it difficult) The mentions that do turn up in academic papers and books are simple references/attributions, which in no way pass the WP:SIGCOV bar. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, and Netherlands. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. David Marx

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

Poorly referenced article that's mostly based on the subject's Spotify account and fails notability and it's also promotional Blanes tree (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, If you were to look into the references, they are not his Spotify account. They are reputable fashion broadcasts which have interviewed him. There is a big difference.

Secondly, as for Notability, the Wikipedia article reads: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Journalism in the form of podcasts, to my understanding, do not fall under this.

Lastly, I will make an effort to add more reviews of his books to provide more scope as to the census on his work; does that suffice to make it less promotional? Theobrad (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To @Blanes tree: I think (hope?) you've misinterpreted Theobrad's comment as coming from @OwenX, who was simply doing routine maintenance. It would be nice if you would strike the rather condescending-sounding comments about Owen, who knows more than enough about notability. To @Theobrad: The podcast episodes are WP:INTERVIEWS, and as such are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and thus cannot demonstrate notability. No matter how prominent and reputable the podcasts are, they are not "independent," since an interview is the subject talking about himself and his work. Moreover, they are to be sparingly used on Wikipedia in general, only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." Hope this helps provide some context. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Japan. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Owen× if you need help understanding notability and WP:NOT please seek it at the Treehouse.Blanes tree (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? Owen× ☎ 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are gathered here today at this deletion discussion to discuss whether W.David Marx meets WP:NBIO. Please stay on-topic.Blanes tree (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you find that me adding this AfD to relevant deletion sorting categories was off-topic? Are you trying to be funny, or just having trouble figuring out who said what here? If you need help deciphering a project Talk page, please check out WP:TALK. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs cleanup; it relies too heavily on primary sources and does have a promotional tone. However, the subject passes the notability test of WP:AUTHOR under criterion 3 as the creator of a significant body of work, books that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews in periodicals. See New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jacobin, and Inside Higher Ed reviews of Status and Culture and Boston Globe review of Ametora. Additional significant coverage in the NY Times (here, here and here) brings him over WP:GNG as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Harder (actor)

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

Unnotable actor with very sparse, minor credits. Fails WP:NACTOR Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He never had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. All his roles were minor roles. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (2nd nomination)

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

Sub- and sub-sub-pages of List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements, which was tied up with the 2017 deletion discussion. These pages stand out among Presidential candidate endorsement articles as excessively forked, hugely reliant on WP:SOCIALMEDIA sources (WP:PSTS) and thus not establishing notability (WP:TRIVIA). I am also nominating the following related pages:

U-Mos (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadel vanishing theorem

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

Needs more of a review for notability. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don’t think a rationale for the deletion is given (that the review is needed is reasonable but is not a reason). As for the notability, the references and further reading given in the article seem enough (further reading can still be used to establish the notability if not to justify statements in the article). Needless to say, you can also find additional refs by just Googling. —- Taku (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MathSciNet has plenty of hits for "Nadel" "vanishing theorem" including seven with both phrases in their titles. I think there is a clear case for WP:GNG notability. Also, we don't take articles to AfD to ask others to review their notability; we take them to AfD when we have reason to believe they are non-notable. UtherSRG, what is that reason? The article had plenty of relevant looking sources at nomination time. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale given, and a literature search finds plenty of sources on the topic, so it's hard to see why a deletion debate is the proper way to discuss what to do about it. To be clear, it does need work, since it combines the typical obscurity of an advanced-math stub with an awkwardness that feels like the prose was translated from another language. (For example, Nadel vanishing theorem for analytic. For analytic what?) But deletion is not prose cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. jp×g 🗯️ 17:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adeka

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPPD

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

A draft that has not been updated for a long time. Not meet notability RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYDW

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

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing or inclusion in lists/directories) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Philippines. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was trainwreck‎. Duplicate AfD; users wishing to participate in the deletion discussion of this article can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristal Kola (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) Styyx (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Kola

AfDs for this article:

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

Weak article without a proper number of references RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Buffyverse guidebooks

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

The guidebooks themselves are not notable by any GNG measure. Buffyverse and buffy itself, yes, but not these guidebooks. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Kola

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of citation RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turkish article only has primary sources. Since I said in 2022 that it was not notable neither @Jfire: nor @HelpingWorld: have added any cites to the article to show otherwise. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Aligarh

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Other than two university entries, and one school, it is not a relevant list. WP:NOTDIR applies too with no standalone relevance of the list. Can be alternatively merged to Aligarh parent article's education section. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Rune

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT --wooden superman 09:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. --wooden superman 09:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. See WP:NOR. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks verifiable and significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Loewstisch (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Pajala municipal election

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't know how this managed to survive the last AFD, but after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Danderyd municipal election its days should be numbered. A page on this municipal election is not encyclopedic material. Whether the municipality has 2,000, 4,000 og 6,000 inhabitants doesn't matter, nor does the physical size of Pajala. The page violates WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a statistical database of every local election around the world. The election summary with a couple of WP:ROUTINE sources, which was added during the last discussion, doesn't change that fact. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to fulfil WP:EVENTCRIT. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Airways

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

Looked through Turkish media and not publicly available archives but I didn’t find any sufficient sources for indicating the airways’ notability. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thing that is missing from the article and something that I did not expect to see at all today is that this tiny airline apparently went to the European Court of Human Rights with the state of Ireland? It has its own article on here, and on a quick glance seems to satisfy notability. Should this AfD result in delete, some content can be merged into that article for some background information. Styyx (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manorathangal

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

References are brief mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Draftified previously but disputed as well as notability tag disputed. Would suggest a redirect to ZEE5. CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a landmark project in Indian cinema. It's bizarre that someone finds it irrelevant. Would you suggest that The Irishman produced by Netflix should simply redirect to Netflix? Filmy World (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable citations are added there is no need of deletion of merging Zyzwvw (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: bylined articles in Variety, The Hindu and Onmanorama, for example, seem to show this is notable. A redirect is indeed warranted anyway, so very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Put it back to draft and saltify the title, no more moving to-and-forth. Let an administrator review it next time. Gan Favourite (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If this is notable, why draftify and block creation, on top of that, if we can agree it's notable here? no more moving to-and-forth? I agree: leave it in the Main. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kütahya Porselen

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

Not meeting GNG per Ncorp/Norg. I did WP Before but it did not help me much. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all known WP:GNG with wide deficits. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F*** Marry Kill

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFP BOVINEBOY2008 08:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found no reviews or coverage except for press releases akin to the one already found in the article. Possible redirect to Fuck, marry, kill. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuck, marry, kill, creating an "In Popular Culture" section. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. It has not yet been released, and does not appear notable enough to have an article before release. Jerdle (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fenercell

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

Notability is not found; there are also no reliable sources Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwell

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

Notability not indicated. Sources are paid or International Business Times (canceled on Wikipedia). Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article are lacking. Webrazzi sources read very much promotional, and there isn't anything satisfying WP:ORGIND in English sources. The Milliyet source (archive link) is just not much about the company. A Google search results in no other significant sources such as other articles or books, no results on DergiPark either. Fails WP:NCORP. Styyx (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional content. Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most of the references seem like paid PR articles failing to satisy WP:INDEPENDENT. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. The article content and its sources are mostly promotional. Other sources found online are mostly promotional content. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Council

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

WP:NORG and WP:ORGIND fail. If a suitable target can be found, it could be re-directed as suggested for WP:BRANCH, although this article certainly does not merit standalone Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with OP.

Axad12 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Folio

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

May not meet WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:GNG. Unable to find significant coverage of the publication. Article is supported by sole subject's About us page at the time of nomination. Article was dratified and then subsequently moved back to mainspace by the article creator. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny Holder

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to her recurring role in Holby City, she also made recurring appearances in Death in Paradise (TV series) (this is not cited in the article, but see this source, for instance). Thus, because she has had significant roles in these two series, she satisfies the criteria of WP:ENT. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably not enough coverage... I find this [14] and a bunch of articles in Hello! about celebrity gossip, but nothing to use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR indeed, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, as Gödel2200 explained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update: at least 3 (see page).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update; 6 (PLEASE see 1st Afd, where other productions and sources are mentioned...and that was closed as a clear and fair Keep)....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one because while she does have a fair amount of credits, she herself has no significant third-party coverage despite being in the business for three decades, which is evident by her article having no content since the beginning, literally consisting of two sentences and a filmography. She is merely a byproduct in content focusing on Death in Paradise, and "meet the cast"–type articles do not meet SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few things to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Casualty's statement, which seems to have mixed up GNG and SNG. The subject person has officially credited main roles in the television series Death in Paradise and The Capture, as well as a recurring role in Holby City which earned her a nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. This means the subject person has at least three significant roles in notable projects, which clearly fulfills NACTOR#1 and should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article, specifically with regard to her nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Crocker Church. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Cemetery

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

Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:NGEO. All the sources here are primary source documents or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. (The Sarasota History Alive item is a transcription of a local historical marker that focuses more on the associated church.) The church is arguably notable (and there's a draft at Draft:Crocker Church); any reliably sourced encyclopedic content about the cemetery could be merged there. I would have draftified this page but there's already a draft at Draft:Crocker Cemetery so that's not an option and AfD is the outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In the same spirit as the nominator, I believe this may be better returned to Draft. It may be susceptible to enhancement there to show and prove notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (See below first relisting banner) No sourcing found by anyone which meets our needs. That sourcing in the article is insufficient. Fails WP:GNG. Might find a home merged into an eventual article in Crocker Church, or could be merged into the current Draft:Crocker Church. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either this page needs to be deleted or the draft where it would get sent needs to be deleted. Different mechanically but the same general outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify by merging the existing article into the existing draft. @Htystudent believed that the article had been submitted through AfC for review which is probably the best thing for it and them as a new editor. I see the potential, I found an article about volunteer efforts for the cemetery in the Sarasota Daily Tribune, and I think the differing names have made it harder but certainly not impossible to find sources. Draftify to an eventual keep, hopefully. Kazamzam (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - both the claims of the article and the topic's overall notability, plus (allegedly) notable facts of the article cannot be verified and are under AfD proceedings. Might be merged into an eventual article on Crocker Church, per Timtrent's suggestion above, but the trifecta of articles by the original author are all insufficiently sourced with reliably citations at present. Kazamzam (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam @Htystudent The article on the church is very likely notable with a focus on the reliable sources. The cemetery is more loosely sourced and I doubt will pass through AFC, but any encyclopedic content here should be included in the church article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cemetery and church have both received notable attention. There have been many articles written about them. If you visit Newsbank or NewspaperArchive you'd see them. However, it does require a subscription. I have cited these articles as sources. I don't really see how that can count against the article if you choose not to purchase the subscription to review them. Although, most public libraries offer these services for free on their public computers. Htystudent (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am unsure of how this article is up for deletion too as I quite literally submitted it for review and it was published, so it’s likely an issue with the reviewer and not me. I don’t understand how this cemetery is “non notable”. It is a historically designated location. It has to go through a strict process to even be historically designated. Htystudent (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Htystudent Please look at the history tab. This has never been through the AFC process. It appears to have been created by you, moved to Draft by another editor and then the (presumed) redirect overwritten by you later. See the logs

Draft:Crocker Cemetery exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find confirmation of burials there, which is what a cemetery does. Nothing notable about this place, I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have done poor research and have not even bothered to look at the sources. If you couldn't find it why do you think an average person would be able to? That's why this page needs to exist.

St. John's/Crocker Memorial Cemetery | Sarasota History Alive!

This is linked directly in the article as a citation. I suggest you obtain better reading comprehension skills. Htystudent (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(the link contains an image, that I do not own, of the historical marker.) You could have even looked up the county's historic register page Sarasota County Historical Markers (arcgis.com) and found it. It's listed under Peter Crocker (since he founded the cemetery) but discusses the cemetery as well. Htystudent (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Htystudent, please be WP:CIVIL. The Sarasota History Alive page lists the text of a historical marker. Under WP:NPLACE, a "buildings . . . may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I think it's fair to say that the ~500 words of a historical marker erected by a local historical society cannot be presumed to constitute "significant in-depth coverage," and that's why we're having this discussion. (Places listed on the National Register are presumed notable; places documented by local historical groups are not and thus editors need to prove their notability using significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources.) @Oaktree b participates in a lot of these debates; I don't agree with his assessment 100% of the time, but he knows how to evaluate sources. Telling him "you have not even bothered to look at the sources" or to "obtain better reading comprehension skills" is not an appropriate way to engage here. @Timtrent is trying to help your work pass muster. I've offered my thoughts above about combining the cemetery content with the church. Your approach today is not a good way to engage with the broader community of volunteers who are working on this encyclopedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When they say " I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register." It is clear that they have not viewed the sources, as the Sarasota History Alive page is the first source listed in the article. Not sure how you can, in good faith, opt for deletion without viewing the sources when the deletion discussion is about the sources. The Sarasota History Alive page is also not just a text. It has a photo, as I mentioned, of the physical historical marker. Htystudent (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being listed on a local register has no bearing on notability; you need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources and that's what's still missing from this conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN ST. JOHN'S MEMORIAL CEMETERY IS A LITTLE-KNOWN BURIAL GROUND THAT, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL), October 4, 1998, p1D (newsbank.com)

1560-word article solely about the cemetery (yes, it's the same cemetery. The name was changed to St. John's Cemetery, but it's still referred to as Crocker Cemtery), will be put in as a citation momentarily.

There were also various articles published in the pelican press, now the siesta key observer, but there is no way to view those since they are not in the county library's archive. Not sure if you would consider those since you cannot view them. Htystudent (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the NRHP will usually have a 20 page history of the building, which really helps notability. This is a long way form that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked at the page I linked, you'd see that it is not NRHP. It is locally registered, which is still notable since the processes are very similar. Htystudent (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to enlighten you to the fact that the Sarasota Historical Society does not have any authority to erect historical markers. Historic Designation can only be granted by the city, county, or federal level (which is a strict process). The Sarasota Historical Society is simply a volunteer organization. Htystudent (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the sources all appear to be paper-based (in the article at present), so I can't look at them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a part of the notability guidelines that paper sources are not allowed to be used? Htystudent (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are not all paper based. Like I said, the first source is literally a link. Htystudent (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent - what @Oaktree b is correctly pointing out is that paper-based sources cannot be verified by other editors which largely defeats the purpose of a source - that it can be used to verify the material it claims to source. If I say I have a paper copy of the Bible that states that Jesus was 7 feet tall and an amazing point guard, but there's no other record of it, it's hardly usable as a source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Many archives have digital material to compliment the paper source and this can be linked to or at least requested to be shared by online readers. Do you see the difference here?

Also, I'm not sure about the wisdom of pointing out (sorry, "enlightening" us) that the Sarasota Historical Society is a volunteer organization with no authority to erect historical markers or give a historic designation. That makes the third-party notability claim more dubious imho. Kazamzam (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was to bolster the verity of the historical marker, which they were trying to say had no significance. Htystudent (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which they obviously did not know historical markers, at least in Sarasota County, can only be erected by a government organization after they have gone through the strict historic designation process. Htystudent (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how people who do not know much about the subject have final say, especially when I possess a master's level of education (Which is why I'm unsure why I just can't be taken at my word- at my sources really- for the print articles). Maybe my education is too formal, and I apologize for that, but it makes zero sense to me how the only qualification to become an editor on wikipedia is length of time. There is some knowledge of local government and history required to determine the verity and significance of some of these things. Htystudent (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent - it seems you are confused as to how Wikipedia works. 'Taking someone at their word' is the polar opposite of the notability and verification guidelines for citations. Your credentials, while pertinent to the topic, have no standing here. If it makes "zero sense" to you how Wikipedia policies work, you need to familiarize yourself with those policies that are going to determine the outcome of this AfD and others, rather than stressing the magnanimity of your credentials and that we should all just take your word about multiple, unseen paper sources because of your education. Your belittling tone and condescension towards other editors is not doing you any favours. Kazamzam (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to wikipedia policies when I used the phrase "zero sense". It was in regard to the qualifications required to become an admin. I just think an admin should be required to have advanced education, so they are more knowledgeable, not just about wikis policies but subjects in general. Htystudent (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent - no one in this discussion is an administrator. Kazamzam (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I'm familiar with finding out information about historical items in Sarasota County, I'll provide some sources I found that might give insight:
[15] Sarasota Herald Tribune has a blurb from their "Slice of Sarasota" but it looks to just restate what the historical marker states (and Sarasota History Alive page)

[16] I noticed when searching, there used to be a church on the site that was deemed historically significant by Sarasota (never made it to NHRP) - it was moved in 2006; there's an active draft of this article - this makes me wonder if the cemetery should be merged with the church (or in the opposite way as the cemetery would include a church by definition) - a separate discussion

[17] Article about the church needing repairs, again the Sarasota History Alive page is referenced

[18] Church is mentioned in passing

I want to say there's a possibility, but it might require books specific to the history of the area. For the church and cemetery, you would need to look at Manatee County as it existed before Sarasota County was created. The timing would also be when Sarasota was a town. There's also the possibility of merging with what I explained above. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Peter Crocker is also an active AfD and will be dependent on this AfD discussion. – The Grid (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There is existing information, through the (relatively recent) restoration of the cemetery. Bill Whetzel, cemetery coordinator, made a big splash between 1998 and 2004 when the cemetery was facing issues (discussed in the issues section of this article) and submitted various press releases to the Pelican Press to make the story public. However, I only have the print copies of these articles. I cannot find them online. Htystudent (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the print copies are referenceable, please use the correct citation template and use them. We may make limited quotations from them using the quote parameter. Note, please that we still require them to be WP:RS and require that they have significant coverage, and are independent of the cemetery. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been updated with five additional sources that comply with WP:GNG, now making it appropriate for publishing. Htystudent (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reviewed the additional sources the creator added to the article, and I'm afraid they don't pass the test. Here's my analysis
Sarasota History Alive: A transcription of a historical marker that mostly focuses on the church and has one paragraph on the cemetery - not WP:SIGCOV.

Herald Tribune on church restoration: This is entirely about the church and only mentions the cemetery in a single sentence - not SIGCOV.

Your Observer 1 and 2. This is the same story at two different links. Four paragraphs amid a discussion of other cemeteries - not the in-depth SIGCOV we need.

Herald Tribune, "Slice of Sarasota". This is a nice piece about the cemetery written as a human interest story. (Literally: "'Slice of Sarasota' is an occasional glimpse of the fascinating life that goes on quietly every day around us, waiting for us to stop and pay attention.") According to our policies at WP:NEWSORG, "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy."

Herald Tribune, "Gone but Not Forgotten". This I could count as WP:SIGCOV in a reliable, secondary, independent source.

However, we need multiple sources and I don't see another one that passes the test for me. That's why I've urged including this material with the church article, but as a standalone article my view remains "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to note but agreeing to your assessment as I said the same thing above. I think extensive sources exist but it might involve some extensive research beyond this AfD duration. – The Grid (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I add citations to the 2 print articles of the Pelican Press would you consider those? They are only available in print. Htystudent (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent As you might expect, this depends whether they are significant coverage, independent of the cemetery, and are in reliable sources. No-one will give you a verdict sight unseen. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how would I share? I don't think I can upload images here and even if I could I'm sure there would be an issue with copyright. Htystudent (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the age against copyright laws in you jurisdiction. Or simply take the risk, make sparing use of the quote parameter in the cite template. I have said this before. ^^^^^^^ Up there 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by the lengths some editors have gone to to find sources to support this article, this is not typical for most AFD discussions I work on. Several participants have mentioned a potential Merge with the church article but have not "voted" for this result so I just wanted to float the idea now that if this is an outcome you support, state this directly in this discussion and the AFD concerning the church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I went ahead and merged encyclopedic content into Draft:Crocker Church. I'm not sure we can !vote for a merge since that would involve a cross-namespace redirect until the draft article clears AFC, though, can we? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempt to contribute but there is some inaccurate and missing information in there (as my histories attempt to be as whole as possible). Since I have direct access to the cemetery records ( I know, not wiki approved sources, but still factual nonetheless), everything I put in my original article is true and accurate. Why was the content here not copy and pasted into a section titled “cemetery”? I can do it myself if it has something to do with plagiarism. Htystudent (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that local tax disputes and leases to Boston Market and lists of non-notable trustees are something other than trivial content that does not belong in an encyclopedia. The point is not to include every detail that was noted in the cemetery records you have access to. “As whole as possible” is NOT the goal of Wikipedia. I’ve been trying to help rescue the truly encyclopedic content from your contributions and you appear uninterested in accepting that help, so I do not think it will be productive to engage further here. My !vote remains delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you did not even spell the name of the road it is located on correctly, I'm not sure if your rescue attempt is very helpful (to me or Wikipedia readers). Like I said, thank you for your attempt but since I am the one most versed in the methods of historical writing and the subject, I think it's best for me to continue the editing on Crocker Church. Htystudent (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following a request from an editor for clarity, I can state that a Merge to Draft:Crocker Church is a pragmatic outcome which I support. I am, however, averse to the creating editor's desire for us to leave it to me (I paraphase their comments) and remind them of WP:OWN - Drafts are for all to edit. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Technically this would need to be closed as a Soft Delete in order to achieve that, avoiding cross namespace redirection~~ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been overtaken by events. I accepted Crocker Church just now, thus it becomes a valid Merge and Redirect target. I have left a comment prior to acceptance on Talk:Crocker Church regarding that acceptance, and left it in the NPP review queue. In all other respects I view this discussion and that acceptance to be separate matters. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Crocker Church — KylieTastic (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Crocker Church per my previous comments. – The Grid (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crocker Church (relevant content has already been merged, and if editors want to add more that discussion can happen there). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wright Karts

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link is their company website. The company seems to have supported many famous race drivers, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the articles speak about the racers and there is no significant coverage on the company itself. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Exceedingly poor quality article. This could easily have been G11ed. I see no indication of significant coverage and no real claim of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly sourced article, and I couldn't find any third party sources reporting on it at all. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing and cannot find anything online that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Crane Films

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference links is their company website. The other 2 reference links don’t work. The founders seem to be notable, but as per WP:ORGDEPTH, most of the search results throw up articles which speak about the founders, but there is no significant coverage on the company. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarden (demoparty)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Tomorrow

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming it meets WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marc Douglas Berardo: I also found no additional coverage. In fact, I found nothing that suggests that Bernardo himself is notable, and I launched a separate AfD for his page. If that page is kept, this should be redirected there; if that page is deleted then the redirect will be speedied. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi Noor

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Iran. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cinematographer and he has filmed many movies, and for the person who created the article, he must not have had much information, and according to the template at the end of the article, please help expand this article, but you came to delete the template. You stated that this is far from the rules of Wikipedia. 204.18.50.110 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jovanna Huguet

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence of multiple significant roles. Her TV career is made up of small appearances. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election

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

Same as usual mayoral election results. Easily fails WP:NEVENT, Lancaster only has a population of ~60,000. Last mayoral election I will be doing for a while, as I don't want to overbear everything with more articles. Allentown will be next. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to its failure to meet the standards set by WP:NEVENT. The city in question is small, with less than 60,000 souls. Thus, we need to find sources beyond routine reports before we even start writing. This election, lacking concrete, lasting effects on the people living in the city, and receiving little media attention, likely does not need its own article.--AstridMitch (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Shreveport mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:

2022 Shreveport mayoral election
2018 Shreveport mayoral election
2014 Shreveport mayoral election
2010 Shreveport mayoral election
2006 Shreveport mayoral election
2002 Shreveport mayoral election
1998 Shreveport mayoral election
1994 Shreveport mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist^talk 02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Paths Radio Network

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

Unable to find the requisite in depth coverage for this subject to meet the WP:NCORP guideline. The sources currently in the article mostly are just covering routine business transactions of individual stations, and a search didn't reveal with much better. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, Iowa, North Carolina, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in North Carolina, the only reasonable redirect target. In a post-2021 environment, this page no longer makes sense. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MagicTracer

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

This piece of paid software does not meet the WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NSOFT either, although that is just an essay. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search has led me to finding only download links, so subject fails WP:SIGCOV Vorann Gencov (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. Probably would've marked this for A7 if it wasn't so old. C F A 💬 01:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cnet and the usual download links are all that pop up. Non-notable software, seems to no longer bu supported, so we likely won't find any new reviews or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2024 Burlington mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town of less than 50,000 people, or 870th in the country. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is NOT a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am Nominating the following articles as well:

2006 Burlington mayoral election
2012 Burlington mayoral election
2015 Burlington mayoral election
2018 Burlington mayoral election
2021 Burlington mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Keep as Burlington is the largest city in Vermont and its mayoralty has served as the stepping stone for many politicians in the state's history. Its elections are clearly notable. Jon698 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also these elections did have sustained coverage. It occurred for over a year as the elections occurred. There is an obvious reason why nobody talks about an election after it happens. I don't see too many recent news stories about the 2018 Tennessee gubernatorial election. Jon698 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which election had sustained coverage? For example, 2012 only had a single source. I did not include 2009 because it looked like it had some sustained coverage. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument unfortunately. If you want to compromise, I would be fine with merging these articles. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles just need some work. They shouldn't be deleted just because somebody hasn't gotten around to expanding them yet. I could drop my work on Nazi films right now and do it if that would change your opinion. Jon698 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍, if significant, lasting coverage can be found I would certainly withdraw the nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start work once I finish the book I'm currently reading. I only have around 60 pages left to read. Jon698 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to start work on these articles at the moment due to a problem with Wikipedia Library's access to Newspapers.com. Jon698 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, of course the sources are ROTM coverage. Run-of-the-mill means coverage that is expected as part of a news outlet's regular coverage of events in its area, so naturally 95% of articles about local elections are going to fall under this category. There is plenty of coverage cited on this page, so I don't see the argument for deletion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that articles need significant, independent, lasting coverage to be notable, and volume does not matter. Otherwise, literally everything that happens in the news would be notable. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Vermont. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]