Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 10	June 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Yonezawa PR21[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The references are PR articles. WP:NPRODUCT can also be applied. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohiyuddin[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Non-notable police officer. 2A04:4A43:8D2F:F41B:E491:49CA:276B:820E (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is quite a famous officer of PSP. He has a big fan following on social media. He is known for live coverage of open court where he listens to people and issues directions on the spot to resolve their problems. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. 39.63.226.172 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Huddleston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject appears to fall afoul of WP:CRIM, specifically the criminal...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

I would contend that neither of these conditions is met. I don't think there's any argument that the motivation or execution of the crime itself was unusual or of historic importance, or that the victim was a renowned individual. While it was stated at RFUD that the subject is a high-profile individual, coverage since their fall from grace (i.e. post-2018) is extremely limited, and that which does exist ([1]) suggests that the subject is intentionally avoiding the limelight and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Following the guidance at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, I would conclude that Huddleston is a low-profile individual at this time.

Even before the indictment, significant coverage in RS is limited to the context of Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum; if we had an article on that topic (or if the biography of his father Floyd Huddleston, made any mention of Huston and/or we had a source to back up that claim) a redirect outcome would be appropriate, but we don't at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Crime, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuguu[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The Telegraph article is about Powwownow and just mentions why they are acquiring Yuuguu. The TechCrunch articles are PR articles. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 F-35 crash[edit]

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

Non-notable military aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, highly unlikely to be any WP:LASTING effects Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and New Mexico. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The event has a lack of secondary sources and has nothing inherently notable that would justify the creation of an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit[edit]

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

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same as St. Michael's School, Durgapur? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft[edit]

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

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

that is not a justification for deletion

Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress[edit]

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps @JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe, a list like List of Evolve Wrestling events is more usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this source [2] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([3], [4]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.

-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.

-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.

-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.

-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.

-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.

-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.

-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.

-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.

-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.

-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.

-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.

-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.

-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.

-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.

-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.

-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.

-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.

-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.

-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.

-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.

-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.

-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.

-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.

-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.

-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.

-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.

-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.

-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.

-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.

-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.

-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.

-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.

I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on the first source are akin to KFM's (It's pretty small, but it also has debatable weighting towards notability) while I am unable to access the second source. I trust KFM's judgement on the second source as potential elaboration on the cosplay point, but as I said I am unable to ascertain how much would be added, and if it would be trivial or substantial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between merge and keep. Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[5][6][7][8][9] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [10], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:HOAX

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.

1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, mostly per WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:V and WP:TNT. Searching his name on Google Scholar finds sources whose reliability I cannot evaluate stating that there was a sufi by this name at about this time period. For anything beyond that I get the impression that much is folklore (specifically, the epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" briefly mentioned in our article). Our article itself reads like it was transcribed from that epic, or maybe from a children's history book based on it. We need to clearly distinguish fact from folklore here, but we cannot do it with the current basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character. TNT feels really off here as I have pointed out given the problem is unsourced content, which I have removed now (thus not so difficult to solve). And the rest is easily solvable as the content is not much. Verifiability cannot be a reason for deletion alone, unless it is TNT. The results from Google Scholar are mostly academic journals. If the concern is their reliability, we would be better off assessing each one (44 results with one spelling) instead of making general statements. There is also a plethora of other sources that can be found on Google Books as well as those I have additionally linked above. Respectfully, I find this vote misguided since most sources are not in English, plus we most likely have a WP:SPA above (please check their edit history), who has gone so far to claim this is a hoax despite obvious WP:SIGCOV. Aintabli (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character" it is difficult to determine whether you mean that (1) someone by that name existed, (2) nobody ever wrote any fiction about him, or (3) the content of our article is not based on fiction. Those are different things and we need to distinguish them clearly. If there is verifiable and reliable content about the factual details of his life, that needs to be sourced. If our article is entirely based on an epic, it should be about the epic, not the character in it. So far the best evidence we have is a Google Books link that tells us the title of a book, which doesn't help resolve these questions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, I mean that someone by that name existed. Those are not the only sources, and Google Books has limited preview. See this for example, which is his entry in a biographical dictionary published by a university in Turkey. This is just an example of the variety of sources available about his life and not just his works. Aintabli (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources "solely" about him: paper from an academic journal and a book At this point, there are at least 5 publications shared here that delve into the details of his life and numerous other that are partially about him. As I have underlined, taking Miskin Abdal as a fictional character would be a huge misunderstanding, which you appear to have partially based your vote on. TNT leaves an open door to recreation, and as far as I know, is meant to be for incurable articles that would be timesinks to edit. A merely 50-100 word article does not fit into that description. Aintabli (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation you gave simply repeats statements made in book by İsmayılov Hüseyn, which I have already investigated and found out that it does not have any reliable references.

The second citation you gave, a paper from academic journal, references some newspaper articles. A newspaper article does not provide a reliable source. It is expected that a scientific journal gives a reference to original documents.

The last book you cited basically repeats content of the first book from the citations of this article. On page 43 a picture of a Safavid king order is presented, which is fake. Because none of the Safavid Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom.

Moreover, I did not find any reliable information about epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" that was mentioned in this article and in book by İsmayılov, Hüseyn. This looks suspicious because an epic was mentioned only in 2001. This is too late for an epic. It could be invented as a part of this hoax.

I noticed that you removed much of the text and left the first paragraph intact, where a statement is made "... statesman, who for many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524). He was the founder of the ashugh school" This statement is false. I have already commented on it. Will repeat again. Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them had nickname Miskin Abdal or founded an ashugh school.

Overall, the more I investigated this article, the more I get convinced that a group of people tried to publish the same or similar content in various news articles and books, to create impression about existence of a known person. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obe (Soups)[edit]

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

All sources cited are blogs, and thus not WP:RS. Few appear to even approximately support the content they are supposedly being cited for. And as far as I have been able to determine, 'obe' is simply a generic Yoruba word for 'soup' and/or 'sauce'. If properly sourced, an article on Yoruba cuisine might well be a legitimate topic, but such an article would have to describe, using appropriate sources, what made it distinctive. Having a word for something doesn't in of itself make a topic notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Africa, and Nigeria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no strong ground on notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)[edit]

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

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ijebu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable betting company; no reliable sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [11], [12], [13], and [14] from the article is enough to establish notability. Per se, the article meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Maybe clean up is the problem. this and this shows mentions in books and newspapers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources look fairly dubious. 1 is a how-to guide with pros/cons of playing, 2 is highly promotional ("popularity spreading like wildfire"), 3 is a hagiographic (see "Not only is Sir Kensington a successful business mogul, he also continues to contribute his quota to humanity") profile of the owner, 4 is a brief statement that the company has signed an athlete to an endorsement deal. Passing mentions found on Google above do not contribute to notability. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful response. Though I have some awareness of RSBIAS, it was good to have the opportunity to read it again and ensure I consider that fully when opining at AFD. I could have phrased my initial comment more effectively. i did feel the sources may scrape past the GNG threshold, which is why I didn't vote delete. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone[edit]

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

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Software, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Campbell[edit]

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

Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Finance. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Ukraine, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)[edit]

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

This was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Arush[edit]

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

Article about a director whose films have been shown at some film festivals, but no awards mentioned. The films don't have articles. The references seem to be press releases or official bio blurbs, and not constituting independent, significant coverage per WP:GNG. Created 10 years ago by account that made no other edits. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Armenia, and Russia. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist International[edit]

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

Despite attempts at improvement this article simply lacks any ability to establish its subject via sustained reporting via reliable, third party sources. All of the third-party RS that are currently on the article are simply in the History section and instead relate to the historical organisation Militant.

This means every source actually covering the RCI/IMT have been published by the group itself or relying on other primary sources written by its sections or former sections.

As a result, this article very much fails to demonstrate the meeting of GNG and should therefore be removed from main space, preferably with the contents being moved to draft in the hopes it'll be expanded in the future and the main space being redirected to Socialist Appeal (the only RS-compliant element of the RCI/IMT that exists on the English Wikipedia). Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engutoto, Arusha District[edit]

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

WP:CFORK from Engutoto. Aldij (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Aldij (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea–Tunisia football rivalry[edit]

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

Simply not a real rivalry. For some reason, the topic of "rivalries" is cherished by many, therefore some users create articles on rivalries on flimsy grounds. The policies that is failed here would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meyers (businessman)[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can't find any notable works other than founding his company which barely passes WP:ORG. I recently AfD'd his company's article as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fred Meyers is also an American retired actor and paramedic while Fred Meyer is a company. I'm having trouble separating them out — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any search has nothing about this guy and plenty about others of the same name: [15][16][17] etc. The article does nothing to establish notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queensboro (company)[edit]

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

A company that barely passes WP:ORG. I can't find any good sources about the company. Most references used in the article are from an unreliable website called WilmingtonBiz. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Carolina and Texas. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thue (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thue (programming language)

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

Unsourced, non-notable, one of hundreds if not thousands of esolangs. wound theology ◈ 07:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage online/in books to justify inclusion per WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopla Software[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. PROD removed by IP editor claiming "I could find sources" without actually adding any sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving engineering[edit]

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

The phrase "shelving engineering" returns zero google results beyond the name of one particular company. This appears just to be a random miscellaneous thing (shelving) that might need to be engineered, like a zillion other forms of "engineering" with no particular name. E Eng 06:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Business, and Engineering. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shelves may be objects of engineering as much as cars or buildings, but I can't find any specific secondary sources (some obscure articles discussing the design of shelves but nothing about a distinct discipline). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow[edit]

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

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely notable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): ~~I didn't search and only~~ the sources that the page currently ha(d)s~~, but the~~y seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3Roam[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and France. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dancey[edit]

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

Appears to be campaign advertising for a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing in his life or career up to now indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in less than a month he will either be an MP or an also-ran, and the political notability will be entirely clear, so the timing of this AfD is puzzling. I've no view as yet on possible Olympic notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability due to his Olympic involvement. Also agree timing of this AfD is poor, as it is highly likely that he will also be an MP in 23 days which will establish the notability on the political aspect. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Meyer Davis[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Illinois. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and New Jersey. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries[edit]

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

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voskos Greek Yogurt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Products, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI[edit]

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

Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,

I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.

As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language[edit]

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [18] and [19]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atala T[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with absolutely no sources on this subject. Looks like the original creator just recreated the deleted article 15 years ago and no one noticed until now. Better late than never. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHPS-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This nomination appears to be the result of a content dispute. (SN: I am not involved in the dispute nor have I ever heard of this TV station; but I read the article and although it could stand a rewrite, the station seems notable, IMO.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has nothing to do with the content dispute involving Baltimore stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will vouch that the content dispute has nothing to do with the slow drip of AfDs of non-notable low-power TV stations. I will also vouch this one shouldn't be tossed with them. Substantial local SIGCOV exists for this one.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.
^ "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.
^ "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

Aiden Pearce[edit]

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

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page alreadyby other user. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination was withdrawn and not properly discussed. I am not convinced the subject meets the criteria for "Sport personality" according to WP:SPORTSPERSON which states that "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor." which he didn't. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability", the subject still needs to pass GNG guidelines. I would like to discuss it further as the subject is not even close to meeting WP:NMMA criteria. Having fought in ACB, AFC, Brave FC, is not enough and the subject has never been ranked in the world top 10 as per WP:NMMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I withdrawn my request cuz as a Persian language user I find and confirm the authenticity of the sources which meet WP:SPORTSPERSON clearly:
- BBC (1) (2)
- The Independent (3)
- Hindustan Times (4) (5) (6)
- Afghanistan International (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
- ESPN (12) (13)
- UFC (14)
- The Print (15) (16)
- Radio Azadi (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

Claggy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greetings, Your concern is understandable. But He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and Wp:Bio , Despite of being a athlete, He has become a national symbol in Afghanistan, with support from the Millions of Afghans including former President, ministers, and other officials who recognize his achievements. His journey is completely motivator for new generation in Afghanistan and India. Besides his sports career, he is a successful motivator, investor, and human rights activist, I hope this satisfies your concerns.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Afghanistan, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed some of WP:NONRS references, He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I would like to ask Parwiz ahmadi What is your connection with the said article subject? You seem to have so much interest in him and you have been pleading with editors to help you save the article. You were pleading with Liz for her cooperation and telling her to close the AFD discussion immediately which the reference can be found here. You were also pleading with a user named Untamed1910 in assisting you to also help you save the article which the references can be found here. There is no Wikipedia article you have ever submitted for WP:AFCREVIEW that has been accepted. All were decline. 99% of the ones you have created and move to main space are already deleted except Din Mohammad Jurat which still doesn't also seem to meet WP:GNG. The only news was that he was fired. How does that now makes him suitable for wikipedia without meeting WP:GNG. From what I have reviewed so far I definitely support Lekkha Moun. The article should be deleted because I don't see how it meets WP:GNG either. This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir@Gabriel601

I must say that yes, I requested Ms. @User:Liz to close the AFD according to Wikipedia's policies since seven days have passed since the AFD started. As the Wikipedia rules state, the AFD should be closed if possible. However, I did not use the word "immediately." It would be better if you speak the truth.

Secondly, my entire interest in preserving this article is due to the several days of effort I have put into it, and I am fully aware and confident that this article meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria. He is one of the most famous athletes in Afghanistan and is considered a national figure in Afghanistan. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You told Liz to Please keep this article and close the nomination which sounds like an immediate task. Secondly effort you put about writing articles you never submitted for review doesn't matter here especially when it has now been nominated for AFD. It is a process that has to be passed since you fail to follow the right way as a newbie. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Gabriel601 ,This matter does not concern you regarding what I have written on Ms. Liz's talk page.

Please write your own personal opinion and that’s it. you are not Ms. Liz's representative or Advisor,

In my opinion, your manner of speaking is inappropriate and offensive. I request the respected admin to take this point into consideration.

Your reaction is very unusual and aggressive. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered also you don't have the right to tell an admin the final decision to take on an AFD discussion. He or she can still relist the AFD if the consensus debate is still not clear. My statement might be aggressive to you but they mean no harm than to coach you. Stop moving article directly to main space without submitting them for review to avoid AFD next time. A question was asked by @Bbb23 on your user talk page but you never responded. @Whpq has also warned you regarding your edits. So nothing seems to be new. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the right to ask Liz to undelete your drafts? Here is an example of what you wrote:

Undeletion Draft Requests Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great. I visited your talk page because you deleted the draft articles Draft

Mayweather, Draft

(restaurant), Draft

Darlington, Draft

Maksumov, Draft

So, do you have the right to request Liz to undelete seven or eight of your articles? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to request because they were draft that was untouched after six months and deleted by Liz as per deletion of old drafts. You seem to be a stubborn newbie. Who know if that was why @Bbb23 was requesting for your previous account username. Your edit needs to be checked. If you can be moving articles to main space without review and non of your article submitted has been approved ( All declined ) on this current account. Then how would your old account then look like. I am done communicating with you. I leave the rest to other of the editors on wikipedia to check your works. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable if they are WP:RS. See WP:RSUEC. And user conduct issues should be taken elsewhere. It doesn't particularly help or concern the afd. — hako9 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Since I have come up as a subject in this AFD discussion, I feel "involved" and will leave the closure to another administrator. Secondly, I don't remember seeing any User talk page messages but I have been very remiss/behind on replying to talk page messages as I'm caring for a bedbound relative and find responding to talk page messages more taxing than other kinds of editing/admin work. So, I don't believe I've been influenced but will decline to close to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Finally, unless there was problematic content (copyright violations, BLP violations, etc.) I will restore a deleted article to Draft space as long as the editor knows they have to submit the draft for review to AFC so that request is not that unusual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great decision. Wishing you a greater strength as you undergo your caring for a bedbound relative. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what is happening with this article, but it's definitely the weirdest AFD I have been involved. There is drama, and I counted 6 different users (now blocked) that tried to close prematurely the discussion as "no consensus". To me it seems like some people may have a vested interest in the subject. Potentiel COI? PAID? Vanity page? I'm not sure, however 6 reverted "close" is very unusual. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted closes are from a long term abuse vandal, and should not reflect on those supporting keeping this article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 6 of them? Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just one person. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article (Abdul azim badakhshi meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria due to extensive coverage in reliable sources such as BBC, The independent and ESPN. His recognition as a national figure in Afghanistan and his multi-faceted contributions confirm his notability. شریف الله منصوری (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti[edit]

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: multiple Estonian champion at senior-level championships, see [20] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. All it took was a simple revert. See below for why. (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson the Volleyball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites no sources, no indication of notability or importance, confusing layout thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd speedy this for a hoax. This is unsourced, and while I know of the ball, this was never seen before the Tom Hanks movie. Some strange OR/hoax article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Someone else has restored the page to its proper form. I will be withdrawing. For future reference to those who are seeing this later, the page was confusing, unsourced, un-notable/important nonsense full of OR/hoax nonsense. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. No issues then. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abby Cunnane[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. A mere 5 google news hits, none are in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Stuff article is all I find [21], no book reviews or no listing in the Getty ULAN. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [22],[23],[24]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content". This from BII] is written and published by one of their investors. This in Forbes is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders. Finally this in Business Outreach is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Johnstone[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The supplied sources are all primary. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Chowdhury[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG and reliable sources for inclusion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I can find are variations of this story [25], which don't contribute to notability, and I'm unsure if it's the same person. The article now is very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Parlevliet[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. She did not even complete the individual event. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Olympic site for her [26]. Nothing else. No sources found in .au news sites. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Detr021119-1] Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[Detr090701-2] Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[3] Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.

[4] "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.

[5] "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]