Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

20 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence
• Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (3rd nomination)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I vote Merge into IQ and race

Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.

I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:

• Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
• It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
• Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah, agreed.

Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Adding enough context to satisfy the requirements of WP:FRINGE would make the article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Race and intelligence, but with a shallower pool of sources. The few bits that are specific to Ashkenazi people or Jewish people – Cochran's ideas, Talmud study, the role perceptions of intelligence might play in overall views toward Jewish people – are too scattered to make "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" a coherent topic for an encyclopedia article. Jruderman (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened[1] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge without positive consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar content has been discussed numerous times on that article's talk page and I don't believe that there has ever been consensus for inclusion. Also note that the Race and intelligence article is under a special sourcing restriction imposed by ArbCom, so including non-academic sources, even in the interest of WP:FRIND, would be disallowed. If I'm not mistaken, all the fringe-independent sources in the article currently up for deletion here are non-academic. And in the absence of acceptable fringe-independent sources, the WP:FRINGE guideline is clear that we must remain silent. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  ah.. didn't see that. agree entirely, seems its been debated to exhaustion on that page.

  possibly appropriate talk sections:

  • Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#No_evidence_for_Jewish_IQ_advantage
  • Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102#Ashkenazi_Jews

  Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete A poor article with mostly very weak and shite sourcing (Charles Murray, Richard Lynn) and newspapers. Newspapers can be good sources for biographies but not for an article like this. It's not worth merging. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?

It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

tally results from previous AfDs.

1) [2] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps

2) [3] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability

3) [4] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right

4) [5] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?

5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [[6]]

6) [7] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.

7) [[8]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.

all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2019 CAFA U-16 Championship
• Articles for deletion/2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (2nd nomination)

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):

Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA

Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA

Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA

Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan

and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing

2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I included more resources from other independent sources such as:
  jomhornews.com, m.kun.uz, trt.net.tr, and sport.kg. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  GiantSnowman can you please specify what's make a tournament notable enough; so i can send the sources that adresse it ? Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Significant coverage - the sources above are WP:ROUTINE. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Matchday 1:
  

  • Tajikistan v Uzbekistan at sports.uz
  • Kyrgyzstan v Afghansitan at sport.kg

  Matchday 2:
  

  • Uzbekistan v Iran at Tasnimnews.com
  • Uzbekistan v Iran at Sports.uz
  • Tajikistan v Kyrgyzstan at avesta.tj

  Matchday 3:
  

  • Iran v Afghanistan at Irannewsdaily.com
  • Iran v Afghanistan at farsi.alarabiya.net
  • Iran v Afghanistan at avapress.com
  • Kyrgyzstan v Uzbekistan at sport.kg

  Matchday 4:
  

  • Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Turkmenportal.com
  • Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at sport.kg
  • Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Kabar.kg
  • Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at sputnik.af
  • Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at dzen.ru

  Matchday 5:
  

  • Kyrgyzstan v Iran at Tansimnews.com
  • Tajikistan v Afghanistan at sputnik.af

  Iran
  

  • All matches reports at toopball.com

  Kyrgyzstan
  

  • Kyrgystan at for.kg

  Other tournament reports

  • Champion at rus.ozodi.org
  • Championship at nm.tj
  • Schedule at ilna.ir

  Should I add more? The tournament's matches were covered by all the top news agencies in Central Asia.

  Also Asian Football Confederation did post all these covering the tournament

  • Matchday 1
  • Matchday 2
  • Matchday 3
  • Matchday 4
  • Matchday 5

  Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep

  let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
  

  Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
  

  Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect must be redirect to the Central Asian Football Association.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect right now. Let's get a few more sports fans in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Guru Vandana

Guru Vandana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [9] [10] [11]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonperson

Nonperson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Original research; Fails WP:GNG: no considerable discussion of the concept in sources. - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete The source cited is relevant and seems to be reliable, but the word "nonperson" appears only once in the body of the article, so not significant coverage. Several other appearances of the term can be found in scholarly sources: [12], [13], [14], but all of these are using the term in completely different senses. The term is just so general there is almost no way to have an article about it without WP:OR or simply having a dictionary definition (which would be pointless because the word is self-explanatory). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since you mentioned "completely different senses", the word cannot be "self-explanatory". - Altenmann >talk 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - There does appear to be a plethora of sources confirming the existence of the "nonperson" concept, with an example of a work that discusses it deeply enough being The Nonperson Treatment in Higher Education: The Case of Contingent Faculty by Roscoe Scarborough.[15] The only thing to do here is to add these sources and summarize how different sources define this concept. Perfectly notable to me.

Brat Forelli🦊 12:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• What you suggesting is WP:SYNTHESIS. The article you cited used the term "nonperson" in a meaning different rom wikipedia. The same with some ither sources. There is no single coherent concept of "nonperson" so that we can consider its notability. Also, to adding diaparate definitions given by differet authors would propably violate WP:UNDUE rule: why would an opinon of a singlle author be encyclopedic? - Altenmann >talk 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.", as WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION states. There is nothing wrong with a single term having more than one definition. The way in which article will make sense is to simply include the verifiable definitions without trying to synthetize them. There is no single definition of fascism that everyone would agree with. The solution is to include multiple. My vote stands. Brat Forelli🦊 17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ratra

Ratra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any coverage of this subject outside of unreliable British Raj-era gazetteers. Searching on Google Scholar, Books, and online, I was able to find unrelated references to the name/term "Ratra" ([16]) but nothing relevant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Jazz Henry

Jazz Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources given that meet WP:GNG (her father's website, herself talking, some name drops, and dubiously reliable articles), I didn't find any better ones, and the article also fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Gender Park

Gender Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. References are routine news reports about individual initiates when it was inaugurated. The organization itself lacks sufficient coverage. Government organization has no inherent notability, WP:ORGSIG. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Kerala Institute of Local Administration

Kerala Institute of Local Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. WP:PRIMARY references are used for sourcing. The content is mostly copied from the official website. Govt organizations are not automatically notable (WP:ORGSIG). Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The Littlest Man Band

The Littlest Man Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There's this in The Reader (newspaper) (which directly copies much of the text from the Wikipedia article) and a review by Punktastic. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Scott Klopfenstein (although I'm not sure if he himself is wiki-notable either). toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It's unfortunately a failure of GNG here, with too few reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article. The review in Punknews is a user review. Geschichte (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete argument seems strong. Even a little more discussion could show clearer consensus, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Akin Gazi

Akin Gazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.

Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatsApp University

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/WhatsApp University
• Articles for deletion/WhatsApp University (2nd nomination)

WhatsApp University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term is indeed used in India. However, I don't think it has scope beyond a definition. It can be easily integrated in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution (WP:CFORK). Although start-class, it pretty much looks like a future repository for dumping all fake news spread on WhatsApp. For serious cases, there is already Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links [17][18][19][20] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers. hinnk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: i added some of WP:RS references. and this phrase clearly passes WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree with @Youknowwhoistheman --BeLucky (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect I agree with @hinnk, the topic can be better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, other than the defination, there is not much to inside the scope of this article which cannot be put under the Fake news article. Xoocit (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect? GrabUp - Talk 03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

ISU World Standings records and statistics

ISU World Standings records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't even know what to make of this. An indiscriminate and incomprehensible assemblage of statistics; many of the "sources" do not support what a particular table purports to show; appears to violate WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SYNTHESIS, among other issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Lists. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

Wayne Simmons (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide Attack Matrix

Worldwide Attack Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Broome

Joshua Broome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Soft Delete, so no issue with recreation, however factors do not appear to have changed substantively since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocco Reed. No indication Broome meets notability requirements as either an entertainer or a religious figure. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Religion. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Christianity, California, North Carolina, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

S. Brent Morris

S. Brent Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Organizations, Mathematics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Kakinada Airport

Kakinada Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not significant enough. No developments after 2014. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete this airport has no significant coverage and secondary sources outside of the district and is not notable. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● 📝} 18:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism

Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Information available from Google Books on the author Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People who changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he clearly isn't a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India on matters regarding inventions and discoveries from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact, a kind of tribalism). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sethubavachatram

Sethubavachatram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

But for its age, this would have been a PROD. Flagged as unsourced since 2014. Fails WP:GEOLAND 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bishop's School (disambiguation)

The Bishop's School (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a WP:ONEOTHER situation: a two-item disambiguation page for a term with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I added a hatnote to The Bishop's School, so the disambiguation page isn't accomplishing anything. - Eureka Lott 17:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Concur that this is WP:ONEOTHER and should be deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Amit Malviya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Amit Malviya
• Articles for deletion/Amit Malviya (2nd nomination)

Amit Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL, Till date he has not won any election, he is just the head of the IT cell of the ruling party, whose job is to spread fake news all day long. You can also read about his fake news here. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The previous AfD you nominated was closed as Keep, as consensus determined he meets GNG. There is no need to meet NPOL if GNG is met. What is your opinion on this? GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Grabup, Thank you for your comment.

  Most politicians who contest elections or are at least active in politics meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Therefore, even if they fail to meet the specific criteria outlined in WP:NPOL they should still be considered for having Wikipedia articles.? What is your opinion on this? Youknow? (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Youknowwhoistheman: Yes, NPOL is an additional criteria, and the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is the main or core guideline to establish notability. If a person or a subject meets any of additional criteria or GNG, then they will be considered notable. For example, let’s assume this politician does not meet GNG or NPOL, but he wrote some books that received reviews from multiple independent reliable sources. Then he will meet WP:AUTHOR, so the person will be treated as notable even if he fails GNG or NPOL. Hope this clears things up. GrabUp - Talk 16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as below:

Delete : Probably doesn't meet NPOL, but he doesn't seem to be a politician... He also doesn't meet FILM, but he's not a film, so the nom seems incorrect. In addition to the sources from last time, this [21] and this [22] show coverage, more than enough to meet notability, GNG in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Oaktree b: Hey, I think you put the wrong vote. You said he meets GNG, so why did you vote Delete? Maybe it was a mistake? GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, good catch. I wanted to !keep. Let me fix it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly meets GNG. It seems the nominator thought politicians must had to pass NPOL to establish notability, even if they pass GNG, which is incorrect. Notability will be established if any of the criteria are met. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

2016 Richmond, Virginia City Council elections

2016 Richmond, Virginia City Council elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG due to a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia isn't a political database. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Pablo Lopez Luz

Pablo Lopez Luz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: some coverage of this person [23] and [24]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Late modern period

Late modern period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was the subject of a disputed blank-and-redirect a few weeks ago, and the involved editors have been talking past each other since then. I have restored the text so it can be discussed here, which is what should have happened per WP:BLAR. Those in favor of the BLAR argue that the entire article is original research and non-neutral, as reliable sources do not meaningfully use the term "late modern period". Those against the BLAR argue that the term does have precedent in reliable sources and that past consensus has been to keep the article as it is. Though I was previously involved in the discussion, consider my nomination procedural rather than a strong stance one way or the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging the participants of the discussion so they can weigh in here if they wish to do so. ActivelyDisinterested, Iskandar323, Nederlandse Leeuw, Peter Isotalo, Sm8900, SnowFire. Given the drawn out arguments around the BLAR, I ask that WP:BLUDGEON and WP:PEPPER be firmly applied at this AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment / Keep. I largely disengaged to avoid the antipattern on Wikipedia of "having to state your opinion over and over again" for it to "count." Anyway, I would recommend that an AFD discussion avoid discussing what Peter Isotalo's main point is: whether sources use the term "Late modern period" and how often. (He thinks it's a made-up term, I think it's a rare term.) Maybe "Late modern period" is rare, but who cares. The content of this article should basically be World History, 1789–1945 and I do not care what it is called - file a WP:RM if desired. But an AFD is about deleting the content, and the idea that we can't have an article on this period of World History because an editor dislikes the name is entirely backwards. Even if, for the sake of argument, the "Late Modern period" is a completely made-up name, this period of history clearly happened, and it should be covered somewhere, somehow. If we somehow had the article on History of the United States (1789–1815) at Cucumber period of American history or some other eccentric name, then we'd fix that with a page move, not with a page blanking. SnowFire (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Should be covered in the articles that already exist using terms that are actually used to describe historical periods. A list of things that happened between two random points in time is not notable, even if the things chosen to be in the list are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V (per Selfstudier) and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. None of the sources cited mentions "late modern period" anywhere (WP:FAIL), it's an "All about George"-type WP:COATRACK article, and a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of information in articles like 19th century, 20th century and 21st century that is much better organised in those articles (per ActivelyDisinterested). I've made quite some efforts to find WP:RS discussing periodisation in historiography, but the term "late modern period" is unfortunately only used in passing, and does not pass WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV. If anything, in scholarly literature, "late modern period" refers to a developmental stage of the English language, not to a commonly-used historiographical time frame (unlike "early modern period", which is commonly used as a historiographical time frame, with a clear meaning: the years 1500 to 1800.) NLeeuw (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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) 13:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Neha Harsora

Neha Harsora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although, I am the page creator, I have nominated it for deletion given the background of G5 deletion of the previous version of this article, therefore necessitating a discussion on the deletion of this new version.

I firmly believe that Harsora is Notable now with her lead roles in Raazz Mahal, Udne Ki Aasha and also her pivotal roles in Thodasa Badal Thodasa Paani and Dhruv Tara – Samay Sadi Se Pare. She also had a pivotal role in the web series Fuh Se Fantasy. All of these roles make Harsora Notable. However, if any other editor has a different opinion, feel free to bring it here Ilovetvshows (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added references which are reliable except for one reference from tellychakkar supporting Harsora's role in Sasural Simar Ka 2 (I have added this reference as it gave good information on Harsora's role in the show).Ilovetvshows (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Simply you can add Db author template, and then this article will be deleted by admin. Youknow? (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

SMK Bukit Bandaraya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/SMK Bukit Bandaraya
• Articles for deletion/SMK Bukit Bandaraya (2nd nomination)

SMK Bukit Bandaraya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG; no significant coverage on the school. N niyaz (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I tried to PROD the article but since it was classified as AfD before I couldn't. Isn't the lack of any user to defend the article explaining that it lacks notability? (Addition) I also just looked at the first nomination, it seems that it is a conversation between two sockpuppets. Could an admin check it out? N niyaz (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Rudy Orea

Rudy Orea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only one source, which is partly a primary source, about him "going back" to amateur football. Only made one cup appearance for Bordeaux as a regular B team player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Vladimír Kinier

Vladimír Kinier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup squads#Czechoslovakia because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this former men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. I've checked Wikipedia articles in other languages, but most of them only provide database sources. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia, which may help copy over English article, is slightly longer and listed the clubs he has/had played for... but SKwiki likewise does not provide any decent coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The WP:BEFORE on this AFD looks quite pitiful. The top Google hit is one example of the FIFA World Cup player meeting WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect as above. I've only found one secondary source that talks directly about him [25]. I think this is not enough to confirm the significance. The source Geschichte cites is an interview, that is, a primary source. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, per Geschichte. The source contains enough independent commentary on the subject to qualify as significant coverage. The source found by Tau Corvi is significant as well. A FIFA World Cup player is virtually certain to pass GNG, and its worth noting that we do not have access to 1990s Czechslovak newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Additionally, per Slovak Wikipedia Kinier totaled 260 top-tier appearances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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 The Times#Related publications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to The_Times#Related_publications, agree not notable in its own right but a sentence here would suffice. Orange sticker (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge as suggested seems fine, it's a part of the overall Times umbrella. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Where is the last AfD so we can compare? Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  The last AfD came when the article was titled at Denial of the 7 October attacks, and thus is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh boy, I remember that one... Yes, I'm not keen on wading into that again either. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into the parent. Quite so. It doesn't address a notable subject. The page largely revolves around and is organised based on one Washington Post piece, as broadcast loudly and proudly by its horribly unencyclopedic first sentence. "Denial" topics normally only emerge when supported by the weight of significant scholarship. What we have here is instead a collection of WP:NOTNEWS-flouting material, with one US news piece used as a washing line to string up a mixed bag of Israeli news pieces WP:COATRACK-style. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
• Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete second JPxG's arguments. I'd suggest a merge, but there's really not much to salvage.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per JPxG. As anticipated at the previous deletion discussion five months ago, it has proven impossible to find a source-based coherent scope here. The content is an unnecessary fork from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable subject.Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable subject, but poorly covered in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Some sources establishing notability (I'm not double checking reliability though, so this list may include some articles that don't qualify to establish notability. I'm including ADL because I'm not sure what that RfC meant for establishment of notability.):
  https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-792968
  https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/byctjmo1r
  https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denial-and-distortion-hamas-led-october-7-attack-overview-false-narratives
  https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-07-07/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-chutzpah-of-the-october-7-deniers/00000190-89b4-d8b2-a3b6-fdff369a0000
  https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-denial-and-disinformation-facing-october-7-survivors-20240630-p5jpy2.html
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/
  https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/denialism-wake-oct-7-massacre
  https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-794596
  https://www.newsweek.com/holocaust-remembrance-means-rooting-out-oct-7-denial-opinion-1864346
  https://forward.com/opinion/574713/holocaust-denial-belief-oct-7-hamas-israel/
  https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-785628
  https://www.irishtimes.com/history/2023/11/10/too-many-people-are-in-denial-about-events-of-october-7th-says-israeli-ambassador/
  https://jewishinsider.com/2024/04/the-effort-to-document-the-events-of-oct-7-for-posterity-and-against-the-deniers/
  https://www.nysun.com/article/as-october-7-deniers-emerge-we-could-use-a-man-like-dwight-eisenhower-again ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  • just a quick reply (this is not intended as a counterargument, I have not reviewed all of these sources) – just wanted to inform you that the ADL cannot be used as a source on these subjects since I noticed at least a couple of those links are to the ADL website. See WP:ADLPIA.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
    • So I took a closer look at all of the sources here, and I can't say I'm impressed.
    • To start, we must note that nearly all of these are opinion pieces and should be handled appropriately per WP:RSOPINION. Such sources can be used with attribution as statements of opinion, but cannot be used for statements asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. That already raises some significant issues. If we're going to make an article with a title like "Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", it might be nice to have something other than op-eds. Furthermore, some of these sources are unreliable or questionably reliable, most of them would be considered biased on the relevant subject, and some of them aren't even about the topic at all, they only happen to contain some keywords that make it sound like they'd be related.

I'll go through them all in order:

1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.

TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.

A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.

I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:

1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
2. Tagesspiegel
3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
4. Il Foglio
5. Libération: [26] & [27]
6. The New Statesman
7. The Australian
8. Le Figaro
9. Il Giornale
10. La Repubblica
11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
14. American Jewish Comittee
15. Jewish Insider
16. ynet news
17. i24 News
18. The Guardian
19. Jewish News Syndicate
20. The New York Times
21. The Atlantic
22. MSNBC
23. Die Welt
24. Star Tribune

-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree it probably is independently notable, but there is some discussion of denialism on the misinformation article, so it is a suitable target. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying it should be, just pointing out that there is a good target if the discussion tends towards deletion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Didem (belly dancer)

Didem (belly dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails wp:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, Fashion, Romania, and Turkey. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems to have been talked about [28] [29] and has influenced others [30] Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per @Oaktree b. She has a significant, routine coverage in the mainstream Turkish news media. Also adding another reliable source.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yabani

Yabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Heid

Alexander Heid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

• Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
• Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
• Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [31][32] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.

  The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Yamaha motorcycles. Failed to find any sufficient sources to support the article.

Product teardown

Product teardown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG and fails to pass WP:FORUM. While this topic may be interesting to certain individuals (such as the author who made the page), it does not have secondary sources that cover it as an activity. I couldn't find anything on the subject besides primary sources which are all original research.

Silvymaro (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Lukas Biewald

Lukas Biewald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Also worth redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. The page was created in contradiction to WP:INHERENT. Lukas Biewald has no WP:WISC about him as a person; the sources [33] and [34] cited in the article address the company, not the individual. No more significant coverage about Lukas is available besides primary social media sourcing. Silvymaro (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sonic screwdriver

Sonic screwdriver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of this article is WP:OR. It is sourced to self-published such as wowstuff.co.uk or fan sites. A WP:BEFORE search brings up WP:PLOT summary or brief mentions and qualifies as a WP:GNG fail. If it were to be completely rewritten with proper sources it would still be at best a section in another article. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is a lot of content here which lacking in-line citations, but most is based on primary sources. So I do not believe that WP:OR is actually a big problem, although I believe that that kind of content could need quite a bit of trimming. I do believe there is easily enough in secondary sources to establish notability, taking together sources like The Economic Times, Gizmondo, Engineering & Technology, The Language of Touch, and especially Gender and the Quest in British Science Fiction Television at a number of places. Shouldn't at least the latter have shown up as something easily recognizebly other than plot-summary in a proper WP:BEFORE search? Daranios (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I did a brief search and found sources relating to fan reactions to the Screwdriver's various redesigns for days. I had more success searching "Sonic Screwdriver" and then inserting the name of a specific incarnation of the Doctor afterwards, which yielded results for a particular incarnation of the Screwdriver. I will also note that the Screwdriver became so ubiquitous that it was added to the Oxford Dictionary of English. [35][36] I additionally found multiple GBooks hits that looked strong, but admittedly a lot of them were paywalled, so I couldn't gauge them very effectively. Either way there seems to be a lot of significant coverage. This article's in rough shape rn, but there is room for improvement. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Daranios' sourcing. Can you share how you found so many hits when the nominator's BEFORE search did not? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The Economic Times and Radio Times sources present in the article indicate that changes to the sonic screwdriver get press coverage. There are also eight pages on the sonic screwdriver in Doctor Who: Impossible Worlds, a non-fiction art collection. Toughpigs (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Stephen J. Budd

Stephen J. Budd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We do not need to have an article on every single person who has been convicted of horrendous local sex crimes. All coverage is rotm trial coverage from publications located in Palm Beach, Florida. After he got convicted it was seemingly never mentioned again. This is exclusively a local affair of one city. This is also a BLP, which is an extra sign we shouldn't have this. If the school still had a page I'd say merge there but we don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT with no significant coverage outside local sources and no lasting effects. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage is not just local and there is a lasting effect, too. He was a registered teacher in Pennsylvania which revoked his registration in 2017. See these items [37], [38] which are not cited in the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's more database listings than coverage so I find that it doesn't really help the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is also this news report. [39] from 2017. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Not really meeting criminal notability, might even be 1E territory, being known for doing horrible things, but nothing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

List of fictional Cambridge colleges

List of fictional Cambridge colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The list is largely unsourced original research. Most entries cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is not viable as a separate article and fails WP:GNG. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University of Cambridge#In literature and popular culture, but the target should be much shorter once unreliable information is removed. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest to postpone this discussion until a conclusion is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional British and Irish universities, as the result there could have important impact on how to go on here. Daranios (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

List of fictional Oxford colleges

List of fictional Oxford colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a poorly referenced list. It has deep issues with WP:V as most of these cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is a WP:GNG fail that is not viable as a separate article. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_popular_media. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest to postpone this discussion until a conclusion is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional British and Irish universities, as the result there could have important impact on how to go on here. Daranios (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

List of fictional Oxbridge colleges

List of fictional Oxbridge colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is poorly referenced WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article tries to describe three different ideas of what belongs here, without any reference to reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment At least Fenbridge College is attested by primary and secondary sources as a fictional Oxbridge college of type 1, so an WP:Alternative to deletion is definitely conceivable. So I suggest to postpone this discussion until a conclusion is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional British and Irish universities, as the result there could have important impact on how to go on here. Daranios (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You Missed

You Missed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is almost exclusively cited to non-RS sites, and isn't even that notable to begin with (I may be wrong). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Politics. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tom MacDonald (rapper): None of the sources here are reliable; they're mostly right-wing publications with clear bias which would never pass the smell test at WT:RSP, the Forbes article fails FORBESCON, and the rest are YouTube and social media. Found no additional coverage. Charting section is full of SINGLEVENDOR fails.

From my past experience, it is important to be wary of the potential for this to be swarmed with comments by biased editors. Hopefully they don't notice this one like they did the one I linked, but if they do, there may be a mess to pick through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not !voting at this point, but will note in regard to the Forbes piece, even if it gets by FORBESCON due to the author being a recognized expert in an appropriate realm (I've not checked), it's unusable because Forbes or the author withdrew the piece; it was on the website less than half a day, which is not a matter of simply aging out (indeed, I don't think Forbes ever actually ages things off the site.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect as per suggested above. There's no indication this song is independently notable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect fails GNG/NSONG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is a source assessment table based on all the coverage I could find:

If anyone finds anything else, let me know. C F A 💬 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait to see if/how well the song charts. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Michael Julius Ford

Michael Julius Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It does not appear that this individual is notable independent of the shooting to which most of the article's content is devoted. I'm not sure whether the shooting is itself notable, so am ambivalent between outright deletion of the article versus moving and refocusing on the shooting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you dont know, why are you requesting a delete? 2600:1016:B00A:CEAE:5186:245E:BC5B:563D (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Both deletion and moving are appropriate outcomes for AFDs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails NEVENT. I did a decently extensive search and while there are a decent amount of later mentions in books (because the motive was religious at least in part) and academic studies, not one of these mentions are sigcov, news coverage fell off the radar pretty fast.

I'm kind of surprised this article managed to survive like this for 18 years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT with no significant coverage or apparent lasting effects after the event. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Milagrosa

Milagrosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Convert to dab

Milagrosa may refer to:

• Places
  • a baranggay in Calamba, Laguna
  • a baranggay in Carmona, Cavite
  • a baranggay in Quezon City

• Buildings and structures
  • Church of La Milagrosa, a Roman Catholic church in Spain
  • Puente La Milagrosa, a bridge in Puerto Rico --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think barangays can even be listed in dab pages unless there is an actual article, or that it is discussed on another article; mere mentions in lists of barangays don't count.

  With that being said, Milagrosa in Quezon City is historical for being the first and still only place where a People's Initiative made it to a ballot. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• @JWilz12345 and HueMan1: Are you fine to convert it to a dab instead? See my suggestion above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation as above: I don't see enough that would make this substantially notable enough for its own article, and there seem to be many similar places that would be better in a disambiguation page rather than picking one to be the sole redirect target. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Harry M. Rubin

Harry M. Rubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Video games, Entertainment, Games, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just a CV. No notability. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Benedict Apugo

Benjamin Benedict Apugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article about a politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Endorsing politicians, and speaking on TV can make you appear on the news but the coverage may be your statements and quotes; same issue here. I want a community consensus on this. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello safari, this man here is a notable man being discussed in schools and very popular. for some reason, he has no social media presence. 70% OF the articles i cited are all on the WP:NGRA. there are far less personalities who worked under this man such as Theodore Orji , Orji Uzor Kalu and many more who have wikipedia articles. and as a young 19 year old girl studying history i ran into this mans story in a book called "Ibeku in igbo History", which i am not sure i can cite on the internet because it's an ancient cultural hard copy book.

If you want this book i can scan it to your email. the book is uploaded on scribd.com by someone and in it, this man was mentioned, but i'm not sure if i can cite that since its a Scribd upload done in 2020 or so.

Some articles i cited also spoke about him as a person and every person growing up here in eastern region of Nigeria knew BB Apugo. You can do more research yourself on this person to see i have put in the work before submitting to wiki and my goal in wiki is not bringing people with huge online presence, but working as hard as possible to include articles that are known about in real life but not spoken about on the internet with every possible info i have.

I will continue to cite more sources and keep working to make sure i include more info and I am sure other people will to by the time they see the article on him. Yinka Williams (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Haukur (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Abhishek Tiwari

Abhishek Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually no coverage in external sources that I could find. (Note: There is a professor at Cal Poly Pomona by this name, it doesn't seem to be the same guy.) Withdrawn, see below Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this article used to be about a cricket player, but was recently hijacked by an IP editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah - should have checked history, that explains the weird format.

  This can be closed in that case, I have no interest in calling the AfD cricket cops. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: Nominator withdrew, and the non-hijacked article has been restored and appears to be a notable cricket player. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Matir Asurim

Matir Asurim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG.

There's two sources currently, one of which is the organization's own website, and the other is actually a decent source in Jewish Currents [40]. Unfortunately, the Jewish Currents source is the only source I've been able to find discussing this organization in any detail.

Before was a bit complicated, given that the organization shares its name with a more well-known phrase. Looking at the organization's social media accounts and linktree[41], however, and the Jewish Currents piece is the only piece of coverage (independent or otherwise) they feature. (Smaller organizations tend to list any mention of their group in mainstream/local press, so the fact they've only listed one piece is a sign that there is likely no further coverage.) I did do my own web search, however, limiting results to those published in 2021 or later. Doing that revealed one mention in an author bio on Google Books (obviously can't work), one passing mention in the Jerusalem Post [42], and one passing mention in a law student's paper [43] on Google Scholar. While this organization could potentially become notable in the future, it isn't now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Judaism. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Concur that the only significant non-passing coverage I can find is the Jewish Currents article. Only one good source doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to clarify the timeline here, the article was deleted on July 13 after User:N niyaz's PROD expired. User:Auyongcheemeng made an undeletion request, saying this is one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia, and the request was fulfilled on July 17, restoring the article. The PROD tag was correctly removed by an admin as part of the undeletion process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Bsoyka Unfortunately being 'one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia' does not explain its failure in satisfying WP:GNG. For your information, there are thousands of schools that predates Malaysia's independence. And unless this school is a high achieving school which is rare, I don't see the school showing any significance. N niyaz (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Simon Kenton High School

Simon Kenton High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - there are numerous detailed sources available for this school see this. I find it extremely hard to believe that any WP:BEFORE could have possibly been done. Nominator should withdraw this. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bootloop

Bootloop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Booting#Bootloop, unlikely to escape being a DICTDEF, no need to delete when it's missing at the target. Widefox; talk 09:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep while I do agree this is likely a WP:PERMASTUB, I do not think it is a dictionary definition. Merging it with booting makes it far harder to find. I think this is a common tech problem that deserves its own article, and it meets the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The redirect would be left behind for ease. Isn't that a WP:USEFUL argument (one not to use in a deletion discussion)? Widefox; talk 14:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Booting#Bootliip per Widefox's rationale, unless the article is expanded to contain more than a dictionary definition and (for some reason) a list of operating systems. Milkk7 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I updated the article with a $24 billion example failure. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I copyedited to be in line with the article / WP:RECENTISM. It is still a stub plus a list of examples. Conceptually, it is a failure subtopic of booting, and there's no need to split that based on size. Widefox; talk 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9
• Articles for deletion/9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (2nd nomination)

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Wikipedia:Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Withdrawn. Keep as it has enough coverage of the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago. C F A 💬 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The publicity policy you linked says:

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.

The recentism page also says
"Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."

This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets GNG. See this story in The Guardian, this article (and this one) in Inverse, this article in Vice, this article in the BBC, this article in The Verge, and this story by Gizmodo. C F A 💬 02:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment tempted to vote delete WP:IAR. A weird-Reddit commenter doesn't become notable just because he has friends who are lazy journalists (and when there is a piece in The Verge about somebody who started posting weird comments 1 day ago, it is safe to assume there is a pre-existing relationship). There is no claim of sustained coverage. Unless there are sources from after 2016, this should probably be deleted, appeals to GNG be damned. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:

• Westling, C.E.I.; Palmer, S.; McKinney, J.; Di Benedetto, S.A. (2020). Immersion and Participation in Punchdrunk's Theatrical Worlds. Performance and Design. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-350-10197-5.
• Skains, R.L. (2022). Neverending Stories: The Popular Emergence of Digital Fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-6493-8.
• Stuart, Thomas M. (1 October 2018). "The vast and omnivorous cloud". Horror Studies. 9 (2): 151–160. doi:10.1386/host.9.2.151_2. ISSN 2040-3275.
• Crawford, Joseph (1 July 2019). "Chapter 5 Gothic Digital Technologies". Twenty-First-Century Gothic. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.1515/9781474440943-007. ISBN 978-1-4744-4094-3.

I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete. C F A 💬 03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Welp, (edit conflict). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I think it should stay because this article has a unique and important part of internet culture with a lot of coverage from trustworthy sources. Removing it would mean losing valuable information about a notable and interesting online event. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Subject passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Mothin Ali

Mothin Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-noteworthy. City councillors are not noteowrthy per se. Holds no higher office; just a ward councillor Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)