Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 12	December 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Friedrich Count of Lippe-Biesterfeld

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

The article's significance is not demonstrated. The article only provides genealogical information, although the person in question did nothing noteworthy.--RobertVikman (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and my own standards for nobility. A redirect to the House is also reasonable. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gillespie (English singer)

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

Subject appears to fail GNG and WP:MUSIC. A web search for sources found only other singers with the same name, and promotional materials for the "Kings of Floyd" tribute band. The article has a long history and has periodically been stubbed due to a lack of sources. Uninvited Company 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uninvited Company 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Group Holdings

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

The contents are already on The Range (retailer) who own CDS Superstores which is the only trading activity of Norton Group Holdings--Icaldonta (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Topic fails GNG without a doubt. Noah ^💬 22:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either The Range (retailer) or Chris Dawson (businessman). Doesn't look like sufficient depth of coverage to pass the WP:ORGDEPTH requirement of WP:NCORP. Mentions of this company almost always relate to articles on its primary subsidiary The Range and/or its sole director and founder, Chris Dawson. Rupples (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as I suggested here. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

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

This article fails to meet the WP:ENT or WP:BIO. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Existing references are either trivial mentions or lack the depth required to establish notability. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Cebula

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

His Ekstraklarsa career listed a total of 206 minutes and he disappeared in 2019. Regarding secondary sources, I only found two transfer rumors and an interview, none of which count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sigcov does not exist

Noah ^💬 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majeerteen-Hobyo Wars

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

I could not find any sources that talk about the war between the Majerteen Sultanate and the Hobyo Sultanate. This article also has not cited any sources. It seems to be a hoax. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Somalia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This war is real and it isn’t a hoax. In the majeerteen sultanates wiki page it talks about this war in the hobyo section. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ONotAQAAIAAJ&q=hobyo+sultanate&dq=hobyo+sultanate&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfw9eRnaWKAxUzWkEAHdH0FJwQ6AF6BAgEEAM#hobyo%20sultanate Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Page 17. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude i got it wrong by autocorrect and now it’s not letting me delete the comment.. Jahahaiaia (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OR mess, lacks citations. It does not meet criterias to warrant a standalone article, fails WP:MILNG. Garuda ^Talk! 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This conflict appears to have occurred as a series of skirmishes over several years. However, there is a lack of specific mentions or detailed articles about these events available online, and the article itself does not provide any substantial evidence or sources. While some sources make passing references ([1]), others seem to be user-generated content without editorial oversight ([2]), failing to meet WP:RS, WP:IS and WP:V. Consequently, this article does not satisfy the notability criteria in WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. QEnigma (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Lang is a prominent Canadian who speaks to Media weekly on important issues of employment and other leading issues that is very relevant to Canadians. (See CBC for long list of media interviews and important information. Interviewed and asked to sit on panels and quoted regualry). Timothy Lang leads Canada's leading not for profit that helps tens bof thousands of disadvantaged youth and helps change lives. -Past politician and strong associations to many Wikipedians entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.197.108.14 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O. E. Lang

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate reliable sources to support notability. Unsuccessful political candidate, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the inclusion bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates get articles only if they can be shown to already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But this article as written is not properly demonstrating his notability as a non-profit executive, either: it's based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as content self-published by directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own writing, while the only reliable source in the batch is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else rather than any evidence of coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We've deleted hundreds of similar articles over the past 7 to 9 years. I see a lot of information and sourcing about the organization he leads, and about his several notable relatives, but notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and does not appear notable outside his unsuccessful political career. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eudora OSE

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

Appears to be an open source version of Eudora, article is virtually entirely original research. Any notability seems tied to Eudora or Thunderbird. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though mainly for historical interest. However, I have a weak spot for Eudora, which was head and shoulders better than Mail, Thunderbird, Gmail etc. I only gave up on Eudora (in around 2012 — long after it stopped being maintained) because our computer service more or less insisted. Athel cb (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you figure out what could be salvaged from this article and merge into Eudora? IgelRM (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay

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

The sources listed do not establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted due to lack of sourcing, this article was refunded to draftspace after an editor said sources were available and then moved to mainspace. However, the newly supplied sources still do not support notabilty. Each of the three sources included here ([3], [4], [5] has a single paragraph or less out of a full-length book on this battle. These sources verify that this battle took place, but is not WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The only other source I found in my WP:BEFORE is a post on a blog of questionable reliability. (It says it allows "anyone with a reasonable grounding in the Dharmic Indian civilization to air their views.") If there's a valid redirect target I'm open to it but I don't know what it would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find sufficient significant coverage (SIGCOV) in all three sources. The first source provides more than a page of coverage (pages 33–34), not just a paragraph. The second source also offers nearly a full page of coverage. While the third source is not fully accessible, its preview suggests at least two pages dedicated to this event. These sources should be sufficient to establish notability, and there was no need to consider a non-reliable source like Pragyata in the first place. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source contains 336 words on this battle. The second source contains 211 words. These are paragraph-length passages; one of them is a literal paragraph. (The third source, which you said you can't see, has only two references visible in search to the battle, so it's quite a leap to assume from those snippets that it's SIGCOV.) The article itself is 411 words long, which suggests some degree of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in managing to find more to say than its source material. That indicates this battle is insufficiently notable for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. Again, open to a redirect if there's a war or campaign this battle was part of, but I don't know what that would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Dalla-Camina

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

A highly promotional bio of an individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article comprise:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([6], [7], [8]) and official bios ([9], [10])
Self-authored content (Fast Company)
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (Elle, B&T)
A Forbes contributor, an unreliable source per WP:FORBESCON;
Promotional marketing content ([11], [12])

My WP:BEFORE search turned up more of the same kind of content, nothing qualifying. I also searched for book reviews to see if she passed WP:NAUTHOR for any of her books, but I found only a single independent review for Women Rising, so there's no pass on that criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haroun (Fadhiweyn)

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

Article about an unnotable headquarters of a Somali rebel group. I couldn't find any significant sources on the subject other than this article. Most sources in this article are either broken or not related to it at all. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Epic

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

An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Yee

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

Article clearly failing general notability guidelines and references are not seems to be reliable. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. Nxcrypto Message 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non notable entrepreneur and founder of a non notable company. Sources cited in article are non RS and not even about the subject of the article but his company. Nothing in the article that brings him close to passing inclusion criteria. Mekomo (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Olympic athletes with similar names. I'm not sure what the SVO Elite club is or why being a member is notable. The award given by the SVO also doesn't seem notable. What's left is a two line sentence about founding a company, and having twins. Neither of which is terribly notable. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but for different reasons than expressed above - there's no explicit allegation of notability and there's only one reliable source and a lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonial anarchism

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

Two and a half years ago, Czar raised the article's synthetic scope over on the talk page, pointing out how the article was a "hodgepodge of various concepts [...] rather than any unified coverage of a singular concept". When I came across it, I concurred with this assessment, after finding that more than 2/3rds of the article was stringing together different concepts based on sources that never mentioned the subject.[13]

I think this is yet another "x anarchism" article from an older era of Wikipedia, when attempting to create new tendencies/philosophies out of passing uses of a term (or even just wholesale making shit up) was all the rage. Searching through sources about this term, I've only found passing references to Roger White's book Post Colonial Anarchism (see further reading section), none of which are substantial enough to even remake this article into one about the book.

As I'm not sure how to fix the scope of this article, as it doesn't appear to meet notability criteria and as I can't think of a suitable redirect target, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst, what about the Further reading citations in the article? czar 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I think Ramnath's chapter of the Palgrave Handbook has the most to draw from, but even then her discussion of "postcolonial anarchism" is limited to two or three paragraphs. Unless there's something I'm missing, I think the most that could be gained from this is a perma-stub that could well be merged into the article on postcolonialism. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sure looks to me like "postcolonial anarchism" is a Thing in the sense that someone can say it's the focus of their research, and I think there's enough in these citations to give us some interesting stuff, but I don't see anything that indicates that "Postcolonial anarchism" is a Thing in the sense of it being a tendency in anarchism that belongs at this title in Wikipedia. That is, I think having an article here is probably a mistake, since it reifies something that appears to just be a normal adjective + noun combo. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth pointing out that the term "postcolonial anarchism" seems to have been absent from scholarly literature before this article was created in 2007.[14] --Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banj brdo

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

While the fighting in this area during 1994 and 1995 was significant, and the two-volume CIA history of the wars in the former Yugoslavia contains significant coverage of those later events, this fighting (if in fact it happened at all) in 1993 is not covered at all in that source. If it happened, then it could be covered by a couple of sentences in the Majevica front (1992-1995) article. As things stand, I can't even find proof in reliable sources that it happened. Thirty years after the fact, if this had significant coverage in reliable sources, is would be apparent. It certainly doesn't appear to. Not notable in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by the same User. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above
Noah ^💬 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MILNG, does not have significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 23:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese films of 2026

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

WP:TOOSOON, It's premature to create this list. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Royiswariii Talk! 10:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article of this nature to exist, however I think the article creator should be allowed to work on it further and republish it in the future when more 2026 Japanese films get announced instead of immediately deleting it. I think an article like this should exist, just not right now. Beachweak (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Standard. Not that early. Useful for navigation. There is a List of American films of 2026, for example. -Mushy Yank. 02:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mushy Yank. Two years is standard for film production nowadays. We're almost in 2025. Many elections, films, music tours, major conferences and conventions, and athletic competitions are organized 14 to 24 months in advance. I've already seen speculation about 2033. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[15] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

Notability and source reliability (original issue) was addressed after it went article creation process and was approved.

Is the issue that it was deleted, improved and then re-approved? Avaldcast (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [16]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [25] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't meet the rigor required by WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added Tejano512 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated abv, new sources have been added. Are more sources needed? A good amount of articles are industry news and not PR. Tejano512 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it could definitely be improved (judging from the AI use) and more reliable sources should be added, WP:ORGCRIT requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for a company to be notable. I think the article's current citations suffice for this requirement. Additionally, this article was only created around two weeks ago; let it breathe a little more. Beachweak (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage fall short of required threshold for WP:NCORP. The sources are PR articles and just two[26][27] appear to be independent with WP:SIGCOV but not sure of their reliability in terms of RS. And even if those two are reliable it still not enough to sustain the article. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The sources are not very robust, so I agree that the article falls short of WP:NCORP. However, since USA Today lists it as one of America's top retailers, there's certainly some potential (once better sources can be found).--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about this topic. Considering this article was created in 2006 and only has one source, I doubt there will be any new or lasting coverage of this topic. Beachweak (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_24#Asmodel * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next to The DC Comics Encyclopedia, American Comics, Literary Theory, and Religion: The Superhero Afterlife also deals with Asmodel, but I believe both are plot summary. Which might suggest merging to List of DC Comics characters: A. Was there a WP:BEFORE search carried out and what where the results?

But to me another question is, if the DC version is actually the primary topic here, or if the original angel inspiring that character would be. If so, this article might be turned around to primarily cover the angel, and have a section for the DC character. The Dictionary of Angels has an entry on Asmodel. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I'm not sure on Angel notability since that is way outside of my coverage area, but we do have List of angels in theology as a potential AtD for this particular redirect if Asmodel is considered the primary topic over the DC character. Asmodel seems to have been removed from the list at some point in the past though, so it may be worth re-adding him in a light merge depending on what happens. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No energy to do a deeper search for secondary sources myself. So until further input a merge to List of DC Comics characters: A in the spirit of WP:AtD seems the best course of action to me for a topic which appears in secondary sources, but where stand-alone notability is unclear. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the removed section at the suggested target could be of help in a merge. Daranios (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors involved in some way in case they would like to give input here. @I dream of horses, CycloneYoris, Jhenderson777, and Quindraco:. Daranios (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. I'm not finding WP:SIGCOV myself. But merging is an WP:ATD that preserves the editing history. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([28][29][30][31][32][33]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([34][35][36][37]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Adams

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

Notability is not inherited, and founding a (maybe) notable company doesn't make the person notable. Found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayden-adams/ he was 30 under 30 in finance (2023) https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2023/finance Szenon (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is best to make a multiple page AFD when one nominates two related pages at the same time. It would be best to merge this AFD with the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uniswap_Labs one. IgelRM (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uniswap. WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Veldsenk (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uniswap or Uniswap Labs. although The Economist has a review of it. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [38] [39] [40], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War

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

Not WP:GNG, specifically – contra the First Mithridatic War itself – there not being significant coverage in reliable sources of Roman command structure at this specific period. Heavily reliant on unsourced interpretations of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY; WP:OR). See also previous discussion at WP:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both major authors of the page have been notified. Ifly6 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is not notable enough, and the writing is very confusing and even off-topic. There is nothing to save. The article has bugged me for several years now; I've tried to reread several times, in order to try to understand what is it about, but left confused every time. T8612 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Furius (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one step above gibberish, and certainly has the stamp of OR about it. Notability of the topic is also questionable (not the war itself, but this odd construct lifted from the war). Intothat darkness 14:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. We're not a place to post an essay, or original research, or a book review, or whatever this is. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

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

Not finding anything that satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this school that devote significant coverage to this school are provided. This two sentence stub makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Zandamela

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

Draftify as I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment or his transfer to another school, which is what we call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. The pieces that seem to be more "in-depth" contain most of the same re-hashed information taken from his college bio, etc., in lieu of any new reporting. JTtheOG (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Africa, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this college athlete that devote significant coverage to this player are provided. The current version of the article does not say that he has played any college games. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently non-notable college athlete with only WP:ROUTINE coverage and no WP:SIGCOV, who could potentially become notable in the future. Frank Anchor 15:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill player lacking significant coverage. BullDawg (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala (elephant)

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

Single news event, in November an elephant was euthanized. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - a routine kind of news event, and WP:SIGCOV - multiple newspapers publishing the same story. Further "in 2014 a zoo acquired some elephants" sources added also seem to cover a routine news event. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:34, 13 December 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 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having coverage from 2014 and 2024 establishes lasting notability. You claim that the coverage is "routine", but the vast majority of elephants don't receive widespread news coverage like this one, even when they die. If all elephants had this level of coverage it could be considered routine/normal, but they don't. EVENTCRITERIA also doesn't apply here because Kamala is an elephant, not an event. Even if this article was about the event of her death (which it is not), it still wouldn't be "routine coverage" because elephants with the same name as a major political figure dying within hours of a major political event and causing massive social media buzz is not a regular or common event. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries don't make someone (or something) notable. Day to day news announcements from a zoo do not add notability. The "major political figure" angle is a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SYNTH of a report from before the election combined with a report of who won after the election. Shows the story hit the internet "water cooler" but there would need to be SIGCOV after the election. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sri Lanka, Canada, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Zoological Park (United States)#Notable animals. It's certainly not unusual for large zoo animals to receive some coverage, particularly about their death; the fact that her name brought additional attention doesn't mean this short-lived buzz establishes notability. Since the main article has a section specifically for cases like this, per WP:NOPAGE a standalone article is not needed. The 2014 coverage is about three elephants that came together, not specifically about Kamala so I don't think that's lasting. There's also National Zoological Park (United States)#Elephant Trails. Reywas92^Talk 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas Andre🚐 05:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Keep per GreenLipstickLesbian's expansion. Andre🚐 10:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above- routine coverage for two instances does not SIGCOV or Notability make. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per above. The 2014 news event is routine, and, while the 2024 one isn't, the fact that the coverage wasn't sustained makes me doubtful of the elephant's long-term notability, especially since there isn't an expectation of renewed coverage in the future as the election has already ended. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources, thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article looks much different now than it did when the AfD started, and I've found multiple articles about Kamala from the 1990s and early 2000s, during her time in Canada. Courtesy pings to @Chaotic Enby, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Reywas92, AndreJustAndre, Itzcuauhtli11, and SilverTiger12:. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it. It does look a lot longer now with more sources. Thanks. Andre🚐 10:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'm very much opposed to redirecting an article about an elephant who lived in Canada for four decades and achieved notability there to an article about an American zoo or American program. Now that that's out the way, I think Google is bringing everybody to the 2024 election coverage. Looking through newspapers, however, and I'm finding several articles about Kamala and her artistic career. Specifically, "Artists come in all shapes and sizes". Medicine Hat News. The Canadian Press. May 2, 1995. p. 2.,"Designer boots for Kamala". Medicine Hat News. The Canadian Press. January 14, 1991. p. 2., "The Picasso of Calgary Zoo", Alberta Report, vol. 1, no. 39, December 9, 1994 are my three sources that provide signifigant coverage of Kamala and, in my mind, should completely re-assure anybody concerned about WP:NEVENT. I'm still finding sources, however, so wish me luck! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[41] This UPI source from 1994 is pretty good too, however. And freely accessible. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:59, 14 December 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 redirect‎ to User:Windborne Rider/Boys II Planet. WP:SNOW redirect by article creator. (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boys II Planet

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

WP:TOOSOON + there's no announcement of confirmed cast members. Aidillia^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. Aidillia^(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article I re-userfied it again so there's no need for this AfD. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to re-userfied it again, you should comment it here, this is not how it's work once it's already in AfD. You can't just moved it like that. Aidillia^(talk) 07:57, 13 December 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.

Crew-served weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Only one, apparently unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there's only one source because the creator was lazy. This is a very common term in military circles. I don't as yet have an opinion about Keep or Delete. Intothat darkness 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common concept of weapons systems. Lack of RS on the page not determinative. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, so please state which sources prove the article passes WP:NEXIST rather than just implying they might exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any kind of search before you nominated the article? The Google Books search alone turned up over 6000 hits, and Scholar over 600. Intothat darkness 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and everything seemed trivial. WP:GHITS is relevant here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 6000 hits is not trivial. That you choose to ignore this is concerning. Grossman's "On Combat" alone contains at least three references to crew-served weapons according to the Google book search, and one of those ties back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire." Both works are hardly trivial. Intothat darkness 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common military concept and term is frequently used in both specialist and general literature. Intothat darkness 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, please include valid sources instead of claiming they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established term and concept in military circles. Yes, the article is in a bad state now, but Wikipedia has no deadline. I have concerns about the nominator's mass nomination of weapon-type related articles over the last few days, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs. Furthermore, like others you have not expounded on what sources are there, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any part of my response pointed to me desiring to force people to change their mind, so it is not bludgeoning... On the contrary, I want to see what kinds of sources people are claiming to possess, which is a legitimate question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to know that it is BLUDGEONING. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1. Responding to everybody IS central to the definition of bludgeoning. 2. Nobody has made a particularly persuasive case yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect to Wiktionary: which already has an entry for it. Multiple routine mentions, or being a well-established term, aren't sufficient for notability per our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not shown. No objection to turning it into a redirect. Nurg (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing another week for discussion of the idea of redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few editors have claimed that there is sufficient sourcing for an article beyond a dictionary definition, yet no sources have been provided here. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is well accepted and frequently used. But it doesn't need an article. A dictionary definition is enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları

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

Was actually gonna do this some time ago. Anyway, this article has no sources (and been like that for a few years) and looking for possible source and there doesn't seem to be anything prove this article can still be rewritten and kept. Their official website seems to have been taken down, or perhaps never existed in the first place. The subject alone is likely non-notable, if not as much as Battle for Dream Island always tended to be. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in these sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3]. Also, 10 seconds on Wayback Machine yields dozens of snapshots of the official website listed in the external links section, so it's a poor WP:BEFORE by the nominator. Merko (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Danacı, Beril Özge (2022-08-08). "Türk Oyun Sektörünün İlklerinden - Şeyh Cehalet'le Savaştığımız Oyun İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Onedio (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.
^ Kocagöz, Yigilante (2014-08-22). "Lale Savaşçıları - Irospalar, Yobazlar ve 90'ların "Karanlık" Tanımı [Oyunlarda Türk Temsili - FauxPlayDosya] - Geekyapar!". Geekyapar (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.
^ Hürmen, Tuana Seda (2023-05-06). "Nostalji Günlüğü: İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Oyun Günlüğü (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources have been provided. Cortador (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Aslam

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Unsourced BLP. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference so it's not unreferenced, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has worked in numerous movies and has also been part of multiple television shows. Previously, the article relied on a single source, but I have now added several new sources to improve its credibility. The subject clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:ENT. Baqi:) (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands now there clearly is not a consensus for any course of action. Hopefulyy another week will remedy that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable actor, active since 90s, worked in multiple notable filmd and Tv Shows, passes WP:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Franks (landowner)

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

William Franks was a british landowner that helped in construction of Fitzrovia District, Percy Street, Rathbone Street and Charlotte Street. This article was marked for speedy deletion due to lack of importance in 2015 but was shortly unmarked to help the creator expand it. A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable. Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good rationale for deletion. Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is one of those really tragic cases where we have a genuine nice little story that's of interest, but it's in the wrong place. This article is basically a nice bit of local history research, but relies very, very heavily on primary sources of information. It should be published somewhere. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on secondary sources, not a place to publish research. I don't want to say delete because I enjoyed reading it, but it really, really doesn't belong here. Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Disagree with the keep vote. The deletion rationale is clearly that this is not notable. It does not meet GNG because there are no secondary sources. Perversely, contrary to the keep !vote, it looks like we are actually thinking of keeping it because of WP:ILIKEIT. Or rather, we like the original research done by the writer of the page. And yes, that is a nice collation of the information from primary sources. I hope that Philafrenzy has a copy, and would suggest that a userfied copy be made available to them if this is deleted. But it is not an encyclopaedic page. This is the wrong project for this information. A site that could make use of much of this information would be Family Search, which allows user content to provide referenced primary source information about people. See [42]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at this editor's other AfD nominations, the rationale is almost always essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is why most of them have been rejected out of hand. They have also stated that they nominate articles for AfD because it's "relaxing"! Comments like A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable and Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable (italics mine) tend to imply this rather than a decent, properly thought out reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that there were indeed rather a lot of nominations in quick succession, and that tends to overwhelm the effort at AfD. I am striking my delete in favour of a procedural/speedy keep. This was discussed recently in another context, and is sometimes allowed. My hope is that this will be closed as keep or no consensus with no prejudice against a better argued renomination (although perhaps not by the same nom.). My thoughts are unchanged. We don't have any secondary sources here, and this is the wrong project for histories synthesised from primary sources, but if we are going to take them down, let's do it in a more careful manner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I understand the reasoning, I do not believe this qualifies for a speedy keep. The nomination mentions notability, and that is almost always the core argument in deletion discussions, and several comments indicate they don't think this should be an article even if they don't agree with the reasons presented in the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lekressner

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

I was unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Massachusetts, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan Patrick Burke

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as higher bars at WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. Note, not every Bram Stoker Award recipient is inherently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Authors. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article having a single primary source since 2006 when it was created. Before search indicate that this person fails WP:NAUTHOR. Mekomo (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While not offering a specific recommendation right now (WP:BEFORE still ongoing), the SPA/COI/PROMO nature of the article's creation is somewhat difficult to overlook. Also, while I've found (and added) a handful of sources to address the otherwise almost entirely uncited body, none of these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. A search for biographical sources returns only the types of WP:INTERVIEWS (common for most authors and not contributory to notability) and the types of "writers bio" written by publishers/distributors/etc (not WP:INDEPENDENT and therefore also not normally supportive of a notability claim). As the subject is Irish, I searched in the usual "mainstream" national news sources in Ireland (Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, etc) - and could find NOTHING AT ALL. As the subject is from County Waterford, I also looked in "local" Waterford news sources - and could only find this "listicle" - where the subject is only mentioned in passing. Will continue with BEFORE when I have time. But, as it stands, I can find nothing to support retention... Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Bram Stoker Awards is a good source, but it's literally a paragraph. None of the other sources contribute to significant coverage. Ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Danacı, Beril Özge (2022-08-08). "Türk Oyun Sektörünün İlklerinden - Şeyh Cehalet'le Savaştığımız Oyun İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Onedio (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[2] Kocagöz, Yigilante (2014-08-22). "Lale Savaşçıları - Irospalar, Yobazlar ve 90'ların "Karanlık" Tanımı [Oyunlarda Türk Temsili - FauxPlayDosya] - Geekyapar!". Geekyapar (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[3] Hürmen, Tuana Seda (2023-05-06). "Nostalji Günlüğü: İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları". Oyun Günlüğü (in Turkish). Retrieved 2024-12-07.

[1]