Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 29	October 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Data mining in agriculture

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

Article covers a super narrow sub-specialist of research, with no easy way to maintain for about 8 years -- doesn't appear of lasting interest for Wikipedia readers, and its well out of date. Sadads (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Un-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 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 procedural close‎. AfD does not handle drafts; the correct process is MfD. I'll equally-procedrally start a nomination there. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hurricane Kristy(2024)

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

Wrongly formatted references + theres already been a discussion regarding this needing an article (which was a no.) Insendieum ✉️ 23:11, 30 October 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.

Walpole (CDP), Massachusetts

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

A user who has only edited about this article states that there is no such census-designated place because a government guideline does no allow one to be within an incorporated place; the guideline does exist. (They then edited the article to say that it is not a CDP.) In the talk page, they wanted to proposed it be deleted, but didn't know how, so I am doing it for them. However, there is a US Census Bureau entry for Walpole CDP, Massaschusetts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. There is also a Walpole (CDP), New Hampshire within Walpole, New Hampshire, so obviously the guideline means nothing or is being misinterpreted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the entirety of most northeastern states is incorporated, the census doesn't see these towns the same way as towns in other states, so they still allow CDPs within them to identify population centers. Lots of these same-named CDPs in all of these states. Though they do make me question whether we should really consider all CDPs automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge with main article The reason for the CDP is that the legal town is much larger than the core settlement town part of Walpole. This can all be explained better in the main article instead of taking it out of context as it is now. CDPs aren't really notable independently of the communities they act as statistical proxies for. I expect the NH example ought to receive the same treatment. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kay Poh

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The best I could find is listings in google books that he competed but nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nobel Prize in Physics

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

We do not have any examples of other individual Nobel Prize in Physics entries and a recent one is underdeveloped and not more notable. Efforts are still needed in many laureates and contribution articles including this year laureates. Nobel Peace prizes have individual prizes because nomination is vastly public which is not the case of physics prizes. Wiki articles like this are mostly a collection of WP:RECENT news buzz. The merge discussion above suggested that we should discuss the deletion of this article. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton, Ldm1954, MYSKaoi, Jähmefyysikko, Quondum, and Sushidude21!: courtesy ping because you participated in the previous conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary, already covered in List of Nobel laureates in Physics

Johnjbarton (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Note that an AfD is appropriate as an earlier PROD was rejected. Ldm1954 (talk)
Delete – Not appropriate to have a separate article: the minimal facts are notable but already more suitably covered in a list article as noted by Johnjbarton. There is no reason why this award should be treated any differently than the other physics Nobel prizes. —Quondum 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to there simply not being enough to say about the awarding of the prize itself, as opposed to the work it was awarded for. The only thing we could possibly say about the award itself is the kerfuffle about whether the work belongs to physics proper, but Nobel Prize controversies#Physics already covers that in a sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not make articles merely for the sake of making articles. The fact that the Peace Prize has its own page doesn't mean this one does. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources (Turkish is my mother-tongue, so I examined all of them.) are promotional. The page needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Iran, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination rationale. The references are dated closely together, are similarly worded, and do not seem to reflect independent journalism. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, seen coverage in numerous sources. Some recent ones do seem to be around the same timeframe but from what I can see is from reputable and acceptable news websites. There seems to be older articles as well which aren't necessarily referenced in the article, but still demonstrate notability. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob. H. Brodie, please read this policy. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. Best, Kadı Message 13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have read and I don't find this applicable to me especially on the 'paid contribution'. If there are promotional texts in the article I'm happy to go and correct it. I'm even happy to add things that would be deemed negative to the subject if that's important and there are sources from it. But from what I have gathered and seen I don't think the article should be deleted on the basis provided above. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain articles that have acceptable sources, which I am confident this article has. Best Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tralfamadore

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

Concept without significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Article is basically unsourced with nothing to WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE does not show enough reliable sources to build this article essentially from scratch. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Jontesta: What about "Tralfamadore is America: Cultural History in Slaughterhouse - Five" and the chapter dedicated to Tralfamadore in The Vonnegut Encyclopedia as secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the first source would seem to indicate that it's not really about Tralfamadore as such but about themes in Slaughterhouse-Five? I can only see part of the second source, but it seems to mainly contain in-universe information and notes that it is not consistently portrayed across works. Maybe there's something I'm missing as I haven't taken a close or in-depth look at either source, but they do not strike me as obviously useful for a stand-alone article on Tralfamadore. What's more, if our article is correct in stating that Tralfamadore is the name of several fictional planets in the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, then it's very questionable if this is even a single topic in a meaningful sense in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa describes it better than I could. As far as I can tell the sources describe the story of Slaughterhouse-Five. The rare use of Tralfamadore is as a metonym for the novel. Jontesta (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to access at least two peer-reviewed pieces. These are both over 35 years old
Mustazza, L. (1986). Vonnegut’s Tralfamadore and Milton’s Eden. Essays in Literature, 13(2), 299–312.
Whereas Milton ennobles his "divine shapes" by making them superior to human beings, Vonnegut presents the otherworldliness of the Tralfamadorians comically, at.once letting us share in Billy's wonder and, as Klinkowitz says, undercutting that otherworldliness.'<<Yet, like Milton's angels, the Tralfamadorians are far superior intellectually to their human guests, for the space creatures also reason at a higher level. They are able to see in four dimensions, and they pity Earthlings for being able to see only in three (p, 26).>> Moreover, having no voice boxes since they communicate telepathically, they must make accommodations so that Billy can communicate with them, the accommodation being "a computer and a sort of electric organ" to simulate human sounds (p. 76), Again, Vonnegut's portrayal of these creatures relies upon machinery—the instruments of the twentieth century—and again, Vonnegut, unlike Milton, uses these familiar gadgets to compel us to look from dual perspectives: from the mythic perspective (Billy's point of view), the Tralfamadorians are no more or less bizarre than the mythic shapes that people the works of Homer or Dante or Spenser; from the literal perspective, they are ridiculous and Billy's creation is pathetic.

Parshall, P. F. (1987). Meditations on the Philosophy of Tralfamadore: Kurt Vonnegut and George Roy Hill. Literature/Film Quarterly, 15(1), 49–59.
At root, the Tralfamadorian philosophy suggests adopting a detached stance from the problems of the world. To some readers, it might seem that Vonnegut accepts this view, since he has written his novel (according to the title page) "somewhat in the telegraphic schizophrenic manner of tales of the planet Tralfamadore," and has filled it with endless repetitions of "so it goes," the Tralfamadorian reaction to death.⁴ With a little more thought, it is evident that Vonnegut is using the philosophy of Tralfamadore ironically. It is true that the "telegraphic schizophrenic manner" of narration emphasizes the illogicality of events and the helplessness of characters, producing a Tralfamadorian fatalism. But if we, like Billy, come "unstuck in time," the final result is a deepened sense of human commitment as we become aware of the universality of human suffering.

And those are merely two of the first four scholar hits I reviewed--the two others were an undergraduate paper and a masters' thesis, neither as suitable as journal-published papers to conclusively demonstrate the inadequacy of the nomination. While a nominator can be forgiven for not having access to these sources, they are both from the first page of a Google Scholar search on the article name. The WP:BEFORE search articulated by Jontesta appears to be either fictional or sufficiently incomplete as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. I AGF that there's a somehow a better, if nonintuitive, explanation. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: The nonintuitive thing about this is that the article is (ostensibly) about Tralfamadore generally in Vonnegut's oeuvre, not the Tralfamadore of any individual one of the works—because they are apparently very different. If the sources do not treat them collectively, this article is in effect a variant of creating a WP:FRANKENSTEIN. In that case, the scope of this article is inherently invalid—the alternative being having articles like Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) and Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan) and so on, or else covering it at the articles for the works themselves (Slaughterhouse-Five, The Sirens of Titan, and so on). Another way of looking at it is through the lens of WP:NOTDICT: if the different Tralfamadores are not meaningfully part of the same topic (as per how the sources treat them in their coverage), it does not matter that they share the name "Tralfamadore" because On Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. Both sources you quote seem to be specifically about Slaughterhouse-Five: the first describes Tralfamadore as being from that work in the abstract and is tagged with "Slaughterhouse-Five" as a keyword but not any other work, while the second discusses the book and its 1972 film adaptation. TompaDompa (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not treat them collectively They do: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places article "Tralfamadore" (specifically the versions from The Sirens fo Titan and Slaughterhouse-Five) referenced in the article and The Vonnegut Encyclopedia (for all of Vonnegut's works) listed above both talk about differences between the versions but treat them as one entity. So if those secondary source cover various versions under one heading, it is not original research if we do, and therefore not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right, and the reason I brought up WP:NOTDICT: covering all Vonnegut planets called "Tralfamadore" under the same heading is not the same thing as treating them as one and the same planet (again, grouping things by what they are called versus by what they are, or the dictionary approach versus the encyclopedic approach). If Wikipedia is to cover them under the same heading, they need to be the same (in the sense that applies to fictional elements). What's more, you are misreading The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places (which is also a rather marginal source that takes a very in-universe perspective, though it can often be useful for in-universe details): it explicitly says A later report of Tralfamadore—which might have been illusory and almost certainly referred to a different alternativerse [...]. In other words, it explicitly states that they are different entities. If anything, that source is evidence that the article scope is invalid. But maybe the consensus among the sources is that there is one true Tralfamadore and the different appearances should be considered as referring to one and the same fictional entity—in which case our article is wrong and needs to be fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic and what sources there may be. Pinging a couple of editors I know to be knowledgable about science fiction: @Mike Christie and Olivaw-Daneel: what do you think? In particular, is this meaningfully a single topic? TompaDompa (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic. Even if the versions are quite different, secondary sources, both those already listed and others, recognize that those versions are very much self-referential: Unstuck in Time, p. 133: the Trafalmadore from Slaughterhouse-Five "that we recognize from Sirens of Titan"; Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110: "Tralfamadore [from Slaughterhous-Five] - the distant world ... from which the flying-saucer pilot Salo had come in The Sirens of Titan; Sirens, p. 63: "The Sirens of Titan and Slaughterhouse 5 play with time through their main character's engagement with a fictitious planed named Tralfamadore, which plays a central role in both novels"; Heimatländer der Phantasie on Hocus Pocus: "and Tralfamadore is back again, too"; Satire und Roman, p. 333: ..."the planet Tralfamadore, to which the protagonist Billy Pilgrim feels transported, first appears in The Sirens of Titan; Visions and Re-visions, p. 164: "Back to Tralfamadore: Hocus Pocus"; Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut: "reappearance: object is to trace the recurrance of Vonnegut's places, characters, objects in different stories; e.g., Pilgrim's Tralfamadore first figured in The Sirens of Titan". Daranios (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, recognizing that reusing the name "Tralfamadore" for a planet is a form of self-reference by Vonnegut is a rather trivial observation. Is there a good reason to cover all appearances on the same page? Is there a good reason to even have a stand-alone planet article in the first place? My impression from the sources I've looked at (briefly, admittedly) is that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan benefits from the context of that novel and content about Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five benefits from the context of that novel, but that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan does not really benefit from the context of Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five nor vice versa. I would love to be proven wrong about this, but it doesn't seem to me like we have much hope of writing a cohesive article on Tralfamadore à la what I did for the Mesklin article where there actually is good reason to cover the planet separately from the works it appears in. If it is the case that the shared name "Tralfamadore" is fundamentally incidental, simply noting on the Kurt Vonnegut article that the name was used for various stories might be the best option, in which case we could redirect this title to an WP:ANCHOR there. It's not like the current content of the Tralfamadore article is worth preserving, seeing as it's all unsourced apart from a lengthy excerpt from Slaughterhouse-Five. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: The secondary sources do go beyond "the name was reused" to a degree: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places has "what the two races of Tralfamadore had in common was that they both regarded human beings as..." and so forth. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110, directly puts three variants of Trafalmadore in relation to each other, even though I cannot see a direct conclusion drawn from that. Heimatländer der Phantasie draws the comparison between the variants in Sirens and Hocus Pocus, both having the same function of messing up the history of humanity. Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut considers it a worthwhile exercise of textual analysis to trace the variants throughout Vonneguth's works. So without deciding yet if this is the best way to present things, yes, based on that I believe putting the variants in context to each other is beneficial and is what secondary sources do, i.e. not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, I suspect Daranios is being overly charitable here. The question before us is "Does Tralfamadore have enough RS to write a decent encyclopedia article about it?" which I have demonstrated conclusively to be affirmative. What is to be covered in that article is beside the point, as that is an editorial decision not requiring--or even benefiting from--an AfD discussion. Your arguments here are both wrong (one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term) and out of order.

The secondary issue is nominator conduct, by representing that a BEFORE had been conducted and found nothing usable when my cursory look at scholar shows plenty of sources--again, this is either falsehood, mistaken or intentional, or simply a lack of competence. For example, since BEFORE D.1. states Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. it is plausible for the nominator to assert that the topic was not understood to be a topic of academic interest, but such an assertion would itself be ridiculously lacking in literary awareness despite that plausibility, hence my CIR comment. Regardless, it brings us into SK #3 territory, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE is a question routinely considered at WP:AfD. The content of the article matters for that, as does the scope—we obviously cannot decide whether a stand-alone article should exist if we do not know what it is to be about. I'm sure you remember that this was a key question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against superheroes back in August. There, one important question was whether the scope of the article as it existed accurately reflected the coverage in the sources or whether there was a problem of WP:SYNTH. There, the article was ultimately not kept but a very small fraction of it was merged. The situation for this article is not entirely dissimilar, seeing as the scope of the article is in question (more specifically, whether it is even appropriate to consider it a single topic). TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term, but then we are at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If the scope of this article is supposed to be "Tralfamadore" as a word, then we need sources discussing "Tralfamadore" as a word (and the article would need to be rewritten to reflect that). Otherwise, covering different topics that are called the same thing—even if both are fictional—at the same article violates WP:NOTDICT. As an example: if there were, hypothetically, a Star Trek planet called "Tatooine", it would not be appropriate to cover it at the article for the (obviously different) Star Wars planet Tatooine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a detail, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five on p. 47 does have to say something on the word, that it is an anagram of Fatal Dream. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and... disambiguate? listify? Like Jclemens based on what has now been found the nomination is flawed in WP:BEFORE does not show enough reliable sources to build this article essentially from scratch. There may be the question how to best delinate, organize and contextualize the content, as discussed above.

A theorectical article Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) in itself would be a notable topic based on how much discussion there is in secondary sources. The same is at least likely for Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan). As I have said above, secondary sources do connect those, so they would benefit from being presented together. But what then of the other variations, e.g. in Hocus Pocus. That one is likely not notable as a stand-alone article, but is still commented on in secondary sources. So such content would need to be covered in a parent article in accordance with WP:ATD-M, i.e. be covered here under Tralfamadore (no brackets). The different variations could also be presented each in the context of their respective novels, and that may also be beneficial. But then they are initially cut off from the context of the other variations. So on solution would be to have the commentary in both places based on WP:NOTPAPER. Not a WP:CONTENTFORK then, because it is in a different context each time. Or we could transform this into a disambiguation page linking to the variants/works they appear in, merging content there which we have here now. Or we might bring together all those suggestions together, treating/transforming this into a list of the variants of Trafalmadore, which gives enough definition and publication info to know what they are and presenting the commentary referring among the different variations. And presenting the (more extensive) commentary for each variant referring to the larger plot of their respective works to those works, or even stand-alone articles on the variants in case such commentary becomes too much for the novel article. I guess the latter is my preferred way to go, meaning keep with some spinout/transfer to the novel articles, and ideally some expansion from the secondary sources collected. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Set index article? TompaDompa (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess Dodge Charger seems pretty comparable to me. Similar to a disambiguation page, but allowing for a reasonable amount of commentary. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps work. I'm mostly worried about a WP:SYNTH mess arising if editors aren't careful enough with source use. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, a WP:Set index article (or indeed any kind of properly-constructed article) is not what we have now. The current article is based entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources (which is the charitable interpretation—the alternative is that it's WP:Original research) in direct violation of policy. If this is kept as a stand-alone article, it will be necessary to start over from scratch. Given that the article is over twenty years old and still in this unacceptable state, kicking the can down the road on bringing it up to acceptable standards (even if it would remain relatively poor) is not a particularly enticing prospect—experience has shown that far too often, the necessary improvement does not materialize within a reasonable amount of time. If nobody commits to fixing the article, what do we think should happen then? I would suggest committing to some other approach to resolving the issues, such as for instance revisiting the discussion about what to do (presumably on the article talk page) in e.g. 6 or 12 months. We could also move the discussion to the talk page immediately, I suppose. Other options include adding a bunch of maintenance tags and reducing the article to a single-sentence stub. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've looked them up now, I would be happy to add the discussed bits of commentary connecting variations if this is kept, given time. (I still did not get around to finish my part in an earlier project, though.) I am not familiar with the primary sources, but so far don't have a reason to suspect that the current content is original research rather than plot summary. I can look a bit into what the secondary source which is given but not used in-line can reference. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll remove the unsourced content and the WP:PRIMARY excerpt to make way for properly sourced content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five - might possibly be notable, but right now it's too small to merit a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I have started and plan to continue expanding the article. I cannot do it in one big step as my time is limited. So how would I be able to improve a short article on a notable topic if redirect became consensus? Such an approach, if made general practice, would in effect forbid the creation of stubs as an intermediate step for notable topics, which clearly is not borne out by policy. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the general case, the answer would be "outside of mainspace until it is ready". On a somewhat related note, I often add {{Under construction}} to articles I am working on, which usually has the desired effect of making other users not do anything too quickly based on the current state of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't really forbid the creation of stubs. Tralfamadore has a clear potential redirect target, where much of the info is already stated, so it's different than a stub that would have no logical place to redirect, like a new book or video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five, because Vonnegut didn't only use it in Slaughterhouse-Five. It's at least as prominent in The Sirens of Titan. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a recurring motif, noted as such by commentators on Vonnegut. The sources provided up a ways would be enough for a small but decent article that describes the variations Vonnegut played on the motif. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Ismay

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions but nothing in-depth that focuses on him. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything to meet WP:PROF here. There's a moderately cited textbook with academic publisher with a single coauthor, but we'd really be looking for at least two such to make it worth searching for reviews to support notability under WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October Betrayal

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

Highly partisan piece sourced to blogs and other partisan sources. Not suitable for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: this needs reworking... We're not even given the date it happened until about half way down and it's missing information. Seems to be sourced to RS, but this reads like a half-translated article that someone gave up on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources for the words 'October Betrayal' are the headline of an online news site and a youtube video with 8 views from 3 years ago. While many of the sources in the article seem to be RS, it is not clear what this is an article of and, therefore, what is being sourced or needs to be sourced. It is also unclear what would be being rewritten if this was redrafted. With that being said, charges of 'partisan' levelled at sources in the article are not useful in nominating an article for deletion. The information in the article, while unbalanced, is not necessarily partisan. None of the cited sources seem to be blogs. Thudinspecies (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

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

A poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [1], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [2], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [3], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [4]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [5]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, there is bias against this article I wrote about the actions of a regime that disregards human rights. I kindly ask as many people as possible to participate in the voting and to familiarize themselves with the facts I will present. Additionally, I request you to review the article yourself and know that I have not yet fully finalized it.

I am writing sequentially regarding the individual's comments about the article.

The article is about the protests that took place in Iran in 2020. Hundreds of news articles have been prepared in various languages (including Persian and Armenian) about those detained during these protests. Books have been written, and research papers have been published. Amnesty International has expressed its concern regarding those detained. Several protests have taken place on different dates in more than one Iranian city. Hundreds of people have been beaten and persecuted. Elderly people, women, children, and even disabled individuals have been beaten and insulted during these protests. The person suggesting the deletion of the article refers to it as a "non-notable article." I can only express my regret toward this request.
Contrary to what the individual claims, nothing has been written against Armenia in the article. On the contrary, even official Armenian websites have been utilized.
Regarding the topic of the "separatist regime in Karabakh," regardless of how you write its name in the article, that territory is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and there are four UN resolutions regarding its occupation. So how should a regime established in an actually occupied territory be named? Moreover, I have only written the expression in that section. In another part of the article, I referred to that entity as the "so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Therefore, you can mention that entity in whatever way you wish in the article. It does not affect the subject or essence of this article.
There is also no problem regarding "Brenda Shaffer" and "Günaz". If you do not accept those references, you can delete them.
It is very interesting that for some reason you are trying to inflate the references to "Günaz", which were used only twice in an overall article with 246 references, to make the entire article appear weaker. Those references also confirm the same fact. You can delete them as well.
Regarding the expression "Southern Azerbaijan(is)," that region has been referred to in several historical sources and books related to dialects, territory, and population as "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan." It does not matter to me whether people living there are called "southern Azerbaijanis" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis." As far as I can see, you have made corrections related to this in the article. Thank you for your efforts.
Other users who will vote should know that a total of 246 references in five different languages have been used in the article. The references include reports from Radio Free Europe, BBC, DW, Iranwire, Voice of America, and reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. I do not understand what other "reliable sources" the individual wants.
There are dozens of video facts, photos, and reports related to these events. You can familiarize yourself with them through external links.

The facts I presented show how biased this individual is towards the topic. I hope the community makes a correct decision. If you need any further assistance or modifications, feel free to ask! --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just that you even used the racist and irredentist Gunaz says more than enough about you and this article, whether you used it 1 or 10 times. I find it rich that you accuse me of being "biased", when your article reads like a Aliyev tabloid. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you are showing such an aggressive attitude.

What is the difference between writing “Günaz” or “GünazTV”?

On the other hand, about Aliyev topic, there are not any statements or reactions neither at the government, nor president level. If there is no such statement then what’s the point of mentioning Aliyev?

Why didn’t you show any reactions toward other parts of my article? Do you have any other issues toward the references other than “Günaz”? Why don’t you talk about them? Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, read up above. It also doesn't directly have to be government issued statements for it be in line with their rhetoric, that goes without saying. This article is taking a heavy pro-Aliyev stance - as you said yourself, others can review the article for themselves. Read also the policies that Archives908 posted. Meanwhile, I'll use the rest of my time to look more into the COI concerns that were brought up about you and the other users. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, it looks like a notable phenomenon and it's not based just on Azerbaijani sources, Voice of America is used 34 times. It's true that Azerbaijani sources might be biased, so I would support trimming the article or balancing it if other sources do not support these claims. Alaexis_¿question? 22:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is WP:UNDUE and is in breach of WP:NPOV. It includes a large list of subpar low quality sources and reads like a propaganda work. The article should be deleted. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious WP:POV violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.211.50 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that while deletion can be used to address NPOV violations, it is only done in extreme cases where the article is unsalvageable. If the topic is notable, and POV or WP:UNDUE can be fixed by stubifying, then deletion is not the appropriate approach. Editors are encouraged to trim down the article to remove POV and UNDUE violations while this AfD is open, and discuss the notability of the topic based on sourcing, rather than reject the current content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutty Professor (character)

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

No reliable sources cited ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. But sources about the character exist. See GBooks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Chistov

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Needs secondary sources about the subject of the article. Demt1298 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Ice hockey, and Russia. Demt1298 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikipedia article has more content and sources; haven't checked them but apparently he was named Merited Master of Sport of Russia, which arguably satisfies WP:ANYBIO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

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

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense).

It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality.

To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:
If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
charlotte ^👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article pretty clearly does not have a NPOV. The 'Criticism' section, by comparison, is quite sparse and measured. Jehorn (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.

Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g 🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g 🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG _chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is more a propaganda piece for the USA election than a WP article. It does not have a NPOV. Most (majority) of the sources are from strongly biased organizations: The definition of neutrality should take the population into account, rather than the left leaning legacy media. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Speedy Delete

This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.
Lack of Reliable Sources:

Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG _chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG _chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES.

Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG _chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also did not see my original statement, I suspect.

I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is AfD the place to debate neutrality of an article? It's sourced mostly to RS... There's a "story" here, not sure why this needs to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG _chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep (with exceptions)~~ Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG _chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.

Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my comment above:

So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.

_

I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.

_

It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims

_

Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep This is clearly a very notable topic that has been reported on by innumerable reliable sources. If the article is biased or should be at another title, those are fixable problems not requiring deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:

_

If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.

_

Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG _chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic.Andre🚐 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination is 100% politically motivated. Great Mercian (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynch (rioter)

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO notability standards and is has only received media coverage for WP:ONEEVENT. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Events, Politics, and Terrorism. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are hundreds of these people, this specific one is not unique. This isn't even one that is close to being notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually redirect to section mentioned below PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect. Per WP:ONEEVENT, as mentioned by Orange sticker: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it." There is already a section on Lynch in the larger article at 2024 United Kingdom riots#Peter Lynch, and the sources have little additional biographical detail that would be out of the scope of that article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HK Alfa

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage anywhere with the exception of database websites. Also, the club existed only for 4 years. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage and GNG is not met in any case. --Tone 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colendi

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

Seems quite promotional in nature and does not satisfy WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are a few sources discussing this, many of which are fintech or startup-focused blogs and news sites. The one source I do recognize, Bloomberg, is also only reporting on the same $65MM that the company was able to secure, as well as a reported valuation, which is only a single topic and does not indicate notability. I can't assess WP:SIGCOV as Bloomberg is paywalled and blocks the internet archive, but I think this would need to demonstrate better WP:SIGCOV coverage in WP:RS to stand a chance. Turkish sources -may- exist with more info, but for now it looks like yet another tech startup trying to use its funding to build PR, to which I will give a resounding "no thanks" ASUKITE 17:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, Internet, Turkey, and England. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chibuike Emmanuel Onyekachi

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Non-notable award. I don't believe the press pieces are independent of the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The press pieces are independent of the subject and they can be verified too. If you feel or think they're not, I think there should be more research on the sources. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be allowed. I have seen notable publications made about him. By going through the links, you will see they are verified. I also checked with real estate practitioners and confirmed that all information provided is accurate. Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share some of these publications you've seen? That's what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcutter

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

This game only has one full review from a RS; the Digitally Downloaded piece just paraphrases the official announcement, Collectors' Editions is more of a database source without significant coverage, and Analog Stick Gaming is run by two people with limited industry experience and qualifications. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But don't ignore that one IGN source that covers the game in detail - I have definitely come across game articles here that only have one big RS and it passed. I have just added three non-English reviews from publications that might be suitable. FYI the Nintendo-Master site seems to have been cited in articles on the French Wikipedia. Sceeegt (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots of reviews. All non-RS? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any actual RS reviews besides the one mentioned by the nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Riptides (Canadian band)

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass specific criteria supported by reliable sourcing -- but the strongest potential notability claim being attempted here is touring, which is not an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the tour. But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, and a ProQuest search only found glancing namechecks and short blurbs rather than substantive coverage that would get them over WP:GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's an Australian band with the same name that seems to have more coverage... I tried in Canadian sources and not much pops up. I don't think this meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make Trade Fair (album)

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

Article about a compilation album, not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to make was that it had notable artists on it, and no sourcing was required beyond listing the tracks -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums now have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability regardless of who was involved in them.
But there are no footnotes here at all, and a search for better sourcing came up empty: even with highly specialized search terms (i.e. just "Make Trade Fair album" wasn't enough) to filter out hits on Coldplay's unrelated X&Y era Oxfam philanthropy campaign, I found absolutely nothing about this album but a few primary sources that aren't support for notability.
The mere fact that an album exists is no longer "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Action

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

Album not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia's approach to album notability used to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, etc.) supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it.
But the only attempted notability claim here is that one song on it is asserted as being the band's "most popular", with no attempt at either sourcing the claim as accurate or even quantifying how their songs' relative popularity was even determined in the first place, and the sole source in the article is a deadlink that didn't even provide the correct title of the content for recoverability purposes — and a Google search for better sources only turned up directory entries, label PR and streaming platforms rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the album, while a deeper ProQuest search found a couple of album reviews, but nothing that verified the purported most-popularity of "L'Aventurier", and not enough reviews to claim that this would pass the bar on "volume of coverage" grounds alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée naval

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

There were no refs on the page until I added one earlier. On further reflection I am not seeing anything else and I don't think this is sufficient to meet the GNG. fr.wiki is of no real help as the only substantive sources there are from the French government. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and France. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also the unsourced Brest Naval Training Centre and the barely-sourced École navale and École de maistrance. Probably sourcing is too thin for individual articles but some merger would be preferable to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates Corner, Indiana

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

Another short-lived rural post office elevated to a settlement. There's nothing there and I find no mentions of it. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delaware County, Indiana. The unincorporated town was already merged into the county. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion is that it apparently isn't and wasn't a town at all, so I don't see the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Polytechnic Institute

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as it meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Searches in English and Bengali found only passing mentions and routine police blotter coverage such as [12], not the significant coverage required to justify a stand alone article. Previously redirected to supervising board, Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but editor মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান removed the redirect. Worldbruce (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj

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

Lack of Detail writing UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and classify as stub. Article from what I can tell reaches notability criteria. Mockapedia (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which notability guideline you believe it meets @Mockapedia? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got a flurry of coverage, none of it substantial. Classic WP:TOOSOON article for a game that will probably be notable some years from now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4J Studios. I definitely considered keeping the article and classifying it as stub, but redirecting it to 4J Studios until the project has came far enough in development for WP:TOOSOON to be not be applicable is a better choice. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meet GNG --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil JoJo

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of previously deleted article, lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:NOTABILITY. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has dozens and dozens of independent sources and a variety of such. Proves notability by showing how his death and influence caused major effects in the gang war in Chicago. RowanJ LP (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm personally undecided but will point out that the article might be viable if reconstructed around his murder and his status as the victim, because that received a lot of reliable coverage in Chicago news as a symptom of gang violence. That might require re-titling the article as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman or something similar. His musicial achievements as Lil JoJo are minimal and not notable enough for a musician-based article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename - I am a major contributor to this article. I think there is definitely a justified argument for keeping the article because his murder was a significant event that received major coverage and discussion. His music is foundational to the Chicago drill subgenre, but there is an argument that that alone may not justify designating an entire article for it (given the lack of references about it). I agree with Doomsdayer520's comment above that the page should be re-titled as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebrality (talk • contribs) 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good article with proper sourcing. More relevant now than ever.

natemup (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more support for the move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ : to the "Murder of Joseph Coleman" seems ok, there is some lingering coverage surrounding the death. The individual doesn't seem to pass musical notability, but the events around the death and the aftermath seem to have some notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder of Joseph J. Coleman as I suggested above, though I was undecided at the time. Then re-write the article to focus on his murder as a symptom of the gang violence that attracted media coverage in Chicago, and downplay his minimal musical achievements as Lil Jojo. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder of Joseph J. Coleman. The article has a few reliable sources, but these all seem to be about the subject's death. He doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. DesiMoore (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oaktree b, doomsdayer520, and DesiMoore, an AFD can't be closed as a Move, that's an editorial decision outside of a deletion discussion and is not a possible AFD closure. If you want to move this article, please argue for a Keep and then afterward a move can be discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has merit, perhaps needing a rewrite. It's sourced to RS, but could perhaps be moved after the AfD is closed (to something similar mentioned to my comment above). Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [13], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [14]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three book reviews (source 14) are more than enough for author notability. Could use a re-write, but this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be converted to stub. Passes WP:Notability 201.13.76.212 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Profile is notable and ascertains Wikipedia:NPRODUCER. Additional citations flag can help in finding and citing more sources in article.

144.168.11.31 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to align with Wikipedia criteria, with indications of notability within their field. While the article could benefit from further citations to strengthen its reliability, deletion may be premature. Applying an 'additional citations needed' tag would encourage improvement and enhance the article's quality without losing potentially valuable information.

94.20.88.143 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inalugartuut

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

No refs on the page for more than 4 years. I'm not seeing anything at all in searches, can't even WP:V that this is a thing, never mind that it meets the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Greenland. JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Inâluartût and Inalugartût Iluat. This might be a transliteration issue. Secretlondon (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's nothing I would want to use as a source. Secretlondon (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German wiki has a disambiguation page with two redlinks for Inalugartuut (mountain) and Inalugartuut Iluat (bay). OpenStreetMap has an entry for the bay, sourced to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (United States). The bay is at 73°37′11″N 55°46′33″W / 73.619710°N 55.775700°W, and is surrounded by rugged terrain. Geonames has Inâluartût (peninsula) just north of the bay at 73°39′N 55°54′W / 73.65°N 55.9°W. The Cebuano wiki has a robot-generated page for Inâluartût, referencing Geonames. None of this establishes notability even in the weakest WP:NGEO sense. I suppose it could be merged into a list entry in a parent, giving the coords, but I can't see a suitable parent. Nutaarmiut is the nearest settlement, but has nothing to do with the mountain / bay / peninsula. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to its limited content and lack of substantial sources establishing notability. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaap-se-Hoogte

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see brief mentions but not the substantial coverage in independent RS needed to reach the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are minimal sources on the internet, but none of those sources are convincing.

GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato

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

Fails WP:NPOL even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Jharkhand. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not elected to any national or state office, this individual fails to meet WP:NPOL, and no multiple significant coverage sources were found, hence they do not meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting political notability and simply founding a party or being an activist isn't notable. The sourcing isn't very helpful, the NBT article is more of a series of brief answers than an article about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Launching a brand-new political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, but this article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wrap

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

The sources are not meeting NCORP - passing mentions, interview-based or trivial coverage 美しい歌 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayHT

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

Non notable product. Spam that smells of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about it. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I would have gone for A7 instead of PROD tbh, no indication of any significance in article, no indication of any notability elsewhere. There's no need to relist this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some passing mentions in autobiographies and regurgitated PR in local media but nothing significant. I'd be interested to hear if anyone can find much else JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEMMCO

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

I could find reliable multiple sources and coverage per NCORP. 美しい歌 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mold-Tek Packaging

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

Should be deleted due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be a speedy keep per WP:LISTED? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
- Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking over the sources, even those on the talk page, they're all pretty trivial or short statements. Chao on their own are an interesting concept, but there's less said about them as their own thing as a fictional species and more as a minigame aspect of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, and even as that game mechanic the conversation feels lacking and non-notable.

Even doing a WP:BEFORE I didn't find anything to dissuade that opinion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. No independent notability of the subject, but surprisingly the Chao aren't actually on the list yet (And linked at Chaos for some reason? I get he's a mutated Chao but beyond that there's very little association.) Several detailed searches have been done in the past and turned up nothing but review quotes or similar, and many of the current refs constitute as Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do think that the Chao Garden itself is marginally notable. [15] [16] [17] However, this article is unsalvageable and would require a total rewrite to fulfill notability, centered around the minigame rather than the actual creatures. It shouldn't be left as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's state is dreadful, but the Chao / Chao Garden definitely meet notability requirements. From a quick Google search I found a Nintendo Life feature, two articles on a Chao-inspired game, multiple articles on Iizuka's announcement there wouldn't be a standalone Chao game ([18][19], [20]), and a few articles on a Chao Garden fan game (Polygon, Kotaku), all filled with commentary that could be integrated in this article. It might be worth reworking this into a Chao Garden-focused article instead of having it as a Chao article, as sources more describe the mode as a whole than the characters specifically. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 03:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Zx mentioned that also and I do agree, the mini game may have some notability. The chao themselves though, not so much, and this whole article would have to be rewritten to focus on Chao Garden.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureCash

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

Outside of the usual WP:CORPROUTINE, I could not find any coverage of this company. The Bengali name (শিওরক্যাশ) returned similar results, for example, about seeking partnership and closing. Unlikely to have enough sources to write a proper article. Would not object to finding a suitable redirect target, but my mind is blank on that so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Bangladesh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JZyNO

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

Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Liberia. CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,^[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.^[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.^[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,^[4] and here,^[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.^[6]^[7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).^[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
^ DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Africa, Ghana, and Liberia. dxneo (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Giant walls of text just discourage participation from others. Both of you need to calm down and let others participate so we can come to a consensus on what to do. Editor(s) who wish to keep the article - can you please give a concise explanation of your WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject of this article meets criterion 1 and 2 of MUSICBIO. He is a Liberian artist who has received some coverage in Front Page Africa, which can be seen here, here and here. He has also recevied coverage in Pulse Nigeria, This Day newspaper, Vanguard, and in the BBC, despite the latter source being a primary source. Moreover, he has been discussed in the Lusaka Times and Nairobi News. He won and has been nominated for the MTN Liberia Music Awards, which is considered the biggest music award show in Liberia. He was nominated five times at the award's 2020 edition and won two awards in the 2023 edition. As previously stated, his song "Butta My Bread" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats song chart and the UK Afrobeats singles chart. Per this article, he is the first Liberian artist to gain global attention and is currently signed to Universal Music Group. Per the BBC article, his song "Butta My Bread" has received 160 million streams and is Liberia's biggest Afrobeats song. His song charting on two national music charts along with the sources I have mentioned here should be sufficient for a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a ~~national~~ international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDis_tortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - Here you go, @Liz:. Would be happy to evaluate any additional source you feel is in dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, stop nitpicking and commenting on every single post. You cannot refute the fact that the subject had a song chart on multiple prominent charts. Charting is major criterion of MUSICBIO. You do not have any evidence to support the claim you're making about some of the sources being "paid placements". You're speculating and making false assumptions in an attempt to justify your position. For your info, Front Page Africa is a major newspaper outlet in Liberia, one of only three in the country. The fact of the matter is that this particular article is independent of the subject. Although it does contains weasel words, there are zero quotes from the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I am allowed to respond despite you saying not to. I am discussing, in good faith, both mine and other's contentions in the discussion. If you don't like it, ANI is that way. I never said he didn't chart so don't infer that I did. As far as the reference you shown, it is in fact churnalism. If you want to see the rest of it, you can go here, here, and here. While Front Page African may be a reliable source, that particular source is a churnalised press release so it can't be used for notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that "presumption of notability" is not notability. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The award won seems notable, with 10 years of history. Some coverage in Ghanian media [21], nothing in Liberian media. The BBC interview helps. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Uvito

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

Fails WP:GNG; all 1 references are census data Pitille02 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 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 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should be updated. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE's "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". If it's been included in a census, then it's legally recognised. Molecular Pilot 10:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springs Toledo

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

No RS evidence satisfying WP:AUTHOR. No secondary RS coverage of his work or impact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Boxing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Vũ Minh

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

This page was deleted under the title Mai Vu Minh (log). The statement "In 2016 he was elected as a people's deputy to the National Assembly of Vietnam and served in the economics committee" in this article is not correct, this name does not appear in the list of deputies elected to the National Assembly of Vietnam in 2016. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP NPOL (as a Member of Parliament). I will find an alternative link for the political career, as the one previously provided appears to be broken.. Also notable as a businessman and billionaire. His diplomatic activities got decent media coverage in Bosnia newspapers too. --Limonis (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added (https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/growth-strategies/exploring-vietnams-economic-path-a-guide-for-investors/472952) does not mention him as a member of Parliament. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not reliable to begin with for any claim, even if it was actually in the blog post. This is one of the entrepreneur contributor blog posts ("Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own")- a favorite target for UPDE scammers similar to the forbes contributor blogs. Perhaps we could look at the other blogs that the "author" posted to the site, like "How to Sell Feet Pics & Make Money: 10 Simple Steps". Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:Salt. He is a fake billionaire, see https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/dodik-primio-laznog-milijardera-iz-vijetnama-ovo-je-tesko-prepricati/2095702.aspx. This article was deleted many times on English, Simple English and Vietnamese Wikipedia. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have enough media coverage on investment, diplomatic and civic activities. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a potential exaggerated /made up facts figure who still has substantial coverage in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian media. Even Euronews has a notable piece on him (which I’ve added to the page), discussing identity questions and issues surrounding the person.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ג'ימיהחיה: Can you supply some of those that post-date the euronews piece? I was unable to locate anything even remotely reliable. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to clean up this article, but I haven’t changed my vote. Independent sources like Euronews aren’t enough to write a biography, and others repeat his unreliable claims. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The pre-2020 sources are useless given that they're part of a hoax per the Euronews source. There is an unbelievable amount of known, fake, blackhat SEO garbage blogs that are running PR pieces on him. Previous incarnations of this article (Draft:Mai Vu Minh and Mai Vu Minh) have used similar junk sources - fake forbes sites, paid advertorials, blackhat blogs and more. Clearly, there's a lot of SEO/paid editing in play. I can see the Mate Sam99 (talk · contribs) UDPE socks were at work at one point. This leaves us with no source for any real notability, a lot of fake sources, and one passing source showing that he's an interesting scammer. Not enough for a WP:BLP. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are very different opinions of this article. User:Jiaoriballisse and User:ג'ימיהחיה can you identify the sources you think are reliable? Because those arguing for Delete says that most of the coverage of him is fake and even the article that you reviewed asserts this, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fake millionaires could be notable I suppose, but this doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure why Croatian and Serbian media are interested in a person from Vietnam. Meeting with xyz form Bosnia doesn't get you notability here either. I don't see this person as passing criminal notability over the alleged fake photos, so this isn't at all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

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

Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS: sources include blogs and Instagram. I’m not a fan – of autobiographical pages on our private website. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: slivers of notability, but I don't see much coverage in RS. This isn't listed in our RS list [22], but reading the article about the newspaper here in Wikipedia, it seems dubious. This seems fine but it's more photos than text and has quotes [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source seems ok [24] and this [25], but they aren't in solid sources and seem to be small stories about her. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 30 October 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Jacob

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

No inherent notability in the highest position attained, deputy Inspector General. The police medal may add to notability but it appears to be only covered in primary sources. His swimming achievements do not meet WP:ATHLETE. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Police, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage by secondary coverage past trivial metnions. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monal (software)

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

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coverage for this chat client at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any coverage. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 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.

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to generally notable as er sources provided above.Cortador (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Canada

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Previously existed for ~a day before being converted into a redirect to Culture of Canada. However, the target page does not contain the word "icon" or any mention of cultural icons, much less an entire list of them. Does not seem suitable to be a redirect, but also doesn't seem suitable to be an article, either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Music, Architecture, Animal, History, Popular culture, Education, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT. Seems like a random collection of terms. Not encyclopedic. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are a very few random lists of so-called "cultural icons", the term is so vague and subjective as to be useless. For example, in the Globe and Mail article The Canadian cultural icons who made the arts better in 2022, I (as a Canadian) only recognize three of them (Joni Mitchell, James Cameron and Neil Young). Cultural icons should be practically universally known to merit that status. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same previous as the AFD for Australia and 10 other countries there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the record, it's really quite silly and unnecessary to revert an ancient redirect from 2011 back into a bad article that existed for all of a day before being redirected, just so that you can force it through an AFD discussion — we also have the RFD process for unnecessary redirects, so why wasn't this just taken there instead of being "restored" into an article that the restorer wants immediately deleted?
But regardless, all the reasons why this was redirected in the first place are still applicable either way: this is subjective, unreferenced, and misleading — "cultural icons", to me, implies people, not symbols and concepts and institutions and folklore: Neil Young and Joni Mitchell and Gordon Lightfoot and Leonard Cohen and Margaret Atwood, not food and political parties and universities and sports. This, as constituted, isn't a list of Canadian "icons", it's just an arbitrary list of random Canadian stuff.
Which is not to say that converting this into a list of celebrities would be desirable either, mind you: we already have more objective lists to cover off the specific things celebrities got famous for doing (List of Canadian actors, List of Canadian musicians, etc.), and as noted above "icon" status is far too subjective, far too prone to personal interpretation, to serve as an objective grouping — though for the record, I as a fellow Canadian am at least passingly familiar with 11 of the 13 people in that Globe and Mail list, not just three. Though to be fair arts/media/culture is my area of expertise, so it would be rather expected that I'd know more about that subject area than some other people would. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Recently restored from being a redirect, as the target in question does not contain a list of cultural icons. Not suitable to be a redirect, but it doesn't seem to be a need to have this as an article, either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the previous AfD and it seems to me that the problem is that "cultural icon" is completely undefined. Entries on such a list may be verified, but they are at the whim of the commentator in the source calling them an icon. I see no purpose in such a random list: delete. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Literature, Music, Architecture, Animal, Entertainment, History, Royalty and nobility, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. This has been recently restored from targeting Culture of Italy, but the page contains no such list of "cultural icons". It is not suitable to be a redirect, but it also does not seem suitable to be an article, either, so we arrive here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Literature, Music, Architecture, Entertainment, History, Fashion, Popular culture, Science, Sports, Transportation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There can be no conclusive criteria for this list. Lorstaking (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Adamson

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 5 of the 6 supplied sources are primary. The supplied third party source merely quotes her making a statement and is not WP:SIGCOV. A search could not find any indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 14:47, 30 October 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions of articles in draftspace go to WP:MFD, not AfD. No prejudice against a refiling over there. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election

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

This article was declined four times at WP:AFC. After the last decline, the creator -- who is busy creating a lot of mayoral election stubs -- went ahead and added it directly to mainspace.

I'm concerned there is not enough non-WP:ROUTINE WP:SIGCOV to support a standalone article on a suburban mayoral election. Of course, there's certainly coverage in the way that any election gets coverage but - from that perspective - that coverage will be ROUTINE by definition. My WP:BEFORE is unable to find any coverage of this event other than one reference in the article (there are two refs in the article, but only one is about the election). Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 30 October 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.

Cory Schmitz

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

A graphic artist who has worked on a number of significant games, but the sources presented and available don't focus on the person, or show compliance with WP:ARTIST Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[2] "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[Apple-3] "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[4] "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.

[5] DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[6] "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[7] "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.

[8] "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]