This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.
A minor member of the extended Trump clan who has no history beyond a speech at the GOP convention. Probably ought to redirect to Dad's list of offspring given that except for the one sentence its all either very basic tabloid/royal-watcher detail or is about other people. Not seeing any independent notability and I don't see having a WP:BLP on a minor child on the basis of one public appearance. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], only a single mention. One can find mentions elsewhere, like in this Tivi (magazine) [fi]article. According to a licentiate thesis, "Kurki (2002, p.57–62) used Moppi Productions as
a case example when discussing developing visual styles", but I wasn't able to access the work. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article suggests it passes WP:GNGorWP:NORG. Most references seem to be to the entity itself. My BEFORE doesn't help much, although sources might exist in Hungarian. The article has a big list of external links, in Hungarian, for anyone who cares to review them (they don't have English titles or publisher information or such). Hungarian wiki article seems to have more content but even fewer references than we do :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article currently relies on primary sources. Also, I am not convinced that a research laboratory of a university and/or a research institute needs a separate article, since there are no major achievements for this. All relevant information can be easily migrated to MTA SZTAKI; therefore, the article can be either completely deleted or, more suitably, merged with MTA SZTAKI. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article on an automotive filter company is written from the company's point of view, and says what the company says about itself, rather than what third parties say about the company. It does not satisfy general notabilityorcorporate notability. The three references are all press releases.
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
www.counterman.com
A press release about the name change, in a trade publication
No
Yes
Yes
No
2
www.freightwaves.com
Transmission, a twice-weekly newsletter about auto supply networks. About moving facilities to Mexico. Reads like a press release.
No
Not really
Yes
No
3
www.aftermarketnews.com
A press release to a trade publication, about an acquisition.
Established in New York City, Premium Guard Inc.’s focus from the start has been on providing a turnkey solution with wide application coverage and private label programs for all segments of the North American automotive aftermarket.
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.
should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has enough WP:GNG. For example here reported by the Telegraph, subject won theBlack British Business Person of the Year award in 2021. I also found this where subject is being the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Malawi's leading online publication, the Nyasa Times that he found in 2006. This could be used to sustain the article per (WP:NEXIST)--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is a listing of where this airline does not fly to. As is stated in the second line "all flights are terminated". Even if it weren't, UIA is a charter airline, so when it was flying it would have gone anywhere you would have paid them to fly to. In as much as this page has any encyclopaedic content at all, it is already described at the main page about the airline so this is a duplication.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or reports of press-releases, or aggregators like Routesonline that re-post brief company statements. None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[3], Choona[4], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[5], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[6] and Sutliyan[7], which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48JCL16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[8], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.
Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal LokorChoona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.
KeepStrong Keep- I disagree strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly outrageously untrue.
Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times. [1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability. [2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability. [3] -- Another interview. [4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb [5] -- Another interview. [6] -- Another interview. [7] -- Passing mention. [8] -- Passing mention. — 48JCL23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?
I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.
I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48JCL11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not obligated to satisfy me, but to build consensus, they should explain further why and how the subject meets some notability criteria. Being a "National award" does not establish notability, such as the Padmashri Award, which is a national award, but the majority of the recipients are not notable and don’t have articles. Giving low effort votes does not really help to build consensus in every AfDs. GrabUp - Talk13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so. GrabUp - Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be notable. The UK Awards are given by a private organization. National, especially in the Indian context, means the recepients may be chosen from across all states and not just locally. The Ramnath Goenka Award is given by a notable organization which has existed for almost a century. The award might not necessarily establish notability in and of itself (although I think it should), but everything else about the subject certainly does. Shekhar is also a member of the CBFC, he writes for notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage. I can't see the harm in having a Wikipedia article on this person even with half of these achievements. I do admit I'm an inclusionist. :) I strongly believe WP can and should cover as much as possible. The spirit of WP, as I think of it, lies in its ongoing goal to become a robust center of knowledge, where minimal restrictions are put on inclusion of information. Shahid • Talk2me13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding evidence the company passes WP:NCORP; the only sources around, even in gaming magazines, are trivial mentions, corporate announcements and interviews. Almost everything about them is in the context of the Alone in the Dark reboot and I Am Alive. Was created by a WP:SPA and of unclear notability since then, suggesting some level of WP:SPAM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and duplicating content that, to the extent that it is encyclopaedic, is already in the main article about the airline.
Taking the last of these first, the main article already gives a summary of the destinations it served. A complete and exhaustive listing is not needed.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. FlightRadar24 simply relays airline-provided information (as the page states: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers"). There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyprus Airways - there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone page, but where the airline flew is indeed encyclopedic information. The WP:NOTs cited here really twist the purpose - none of the prongs under WP:NOTCATALOG apply here. WP:NCORP doesn't apply here because it's not an article about a corporation. The nomination also fails to understand what "indiscriminate" means - this is a very discriminate list. However the sourcing isn't there for a stand-alone page, so we can't keep the information at its current location. SportingFlyerT·C09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is a very discriminate list" - where was any discrimination applied at all here? In what way is this not cover by ""Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"?WP:NCORP literally states in its very first line that "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service".
I don't understand this combative attitude when you straight up admit that this is yet another airline destination list page that shouldn't exist. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup when you could just say that it's not properly sourced enough for a stand-alone article. And a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate - there is a finite number of entries for a related group of items. SportingFlyerT·C09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate" - this isn't a list of every destination served on the last operating day? This includes destinations that clearly weren't being served on that day since they are "seasonal"? The list is anyway explicitly of destinations the airline might have flown to in November 2014 some months before it folded?
WP:NOT has something like 30 headings and I've mentioned two here and given the reasons for why they are mentioned, so I don't think "throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup" is fair.
If you list every entry in a list regardless of relevance, or whether they were even being flown to at the time in question (were "seasonal" destinations being served in November?) then I don't see where discrimination is being applied. Encyclopaedias are supposed to summarise, not be complete listings of trivia. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be their final scheduled timetable. That's discriminate encyclopedic information as it provides a scope of where the airline flew to before it folded, which is indeed relevant information about airlines. SportingFlyerT·C11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how taking the content of a document like this and transposing it on to Wikipedia is discriminate. This schedule was any way just a future plan - one they did not actually fulfil - and so excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that operates charter flights and as such they will fly whereever you are willing to pay them enough to fly to.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or Airline Routes Maps (an agent) or AeroRoutes (a blog/industry press re-posting brief company statements). None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.
A simple statement that DAT operates charter and cargo flights across Europe in the main article is sufficient to cover this, nothing from this article needs to be merged. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous history of the organization Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, which was formed in 1926[9], was corrected on the page
In 1989[10], a new organization was formed after resigning from this organization due to differences in ideas
And the person who wrote the article made a full correction on the first page intentionally / for his own people (WP:CONFLICT),WP:PE and added the previous established year to the new page and wrote the new page in a promotional style. More content from the first page is also included in the new page ~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though Spworld2 says to have included this discussion in the deletion sorting lists for Kerala and India, I could not see it. Is its inclusion necessary there? If yes, you being successful in adding this in deletion sorting lists for organizations and Islam, fee free to add this discussion to the same of Kerala and India. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete page on Hitler, USA, Samastha of AP Sunnis and EK Sunnis just because there are people who have COI. Content is to determined using the reliable sources. I am neutral in this. That is why I say "(of AP Sunnis)" and "(EK Sunnis)". Both the AP and EK Sunnis claim their respective Samasthas is the real one. I can show that. So accepting one group's only claim could be CONFLICT OF INTEREST, especially in Wikipedia where Ahmadiyyas are categorised alongside Muslims. Reliable sources call Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".I am sorry to say calling for its deletion must be nothing other than COI since reliable sources do not support that claim. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, It's more than just a conflict of interest. According to government records, the name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is registered exclusively for the Samastha (EK Sunni's). Therefore, the claim made by the Ap Sunni's is not relevant. The government records tend to be more reliable than media sources Iyas Muhammed kc (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy :
Naming is to be done as per the Wikipedia policy. It is not the government that decides in what name an organization should be known, but rather publicity, which in turn is used by reliable sources. So It do this as per naming policy of Wikipedia. See WP:NC. Hence "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)" is apparently the best choice because this contains both the term "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama" and the term "AP Sunnis". This is because the term "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama" is needed to identify the organization because that is how it is widely referred to and the term "AP Sunnis" is added after the name to avoid confusion". The part "(of AP Sunnis)" is used in the bracket to understand that it is not part of the name. The terms "AP Sunnis" and "EK Sunnis" are widely used. So I recommend the name of the article must have two things: one is the name which is widely used and the other one is another widely used term "AP Sunnis". Other possible names lack these advantages. Hence keep the article.
Relevance :
As for your (Iyas Muhammad kc) claim, here we can watch a Malayalam video in which Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, belonging to the AP Sunnis, made the same but opposite claim that as per the government's register office, Samastha of AP Sunnis exists there. But it is not relevant here. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the discussion here is about deleting an article, not moving an article. Even if you have problem with the name, it can be solved by moving the article after a discussion. Deletion is not needed. Again there is no need of deleting the article. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-like article that relies on WP:SYNTH from mostly unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are not about Fantasy Vikings, but only used to support some part or argument within the article. Some of this info can be relevant additions in Vikings, Viking Age, Viking revivalorhistorical fantasy, if it's not already there, but Fantasy Viking fails WP:GNG. There may be justification for some kind of broader article about the reception history of Vikings or the Viking Age in popular culture, but I don't think this article can be transformed into that. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, wow the sourcing in this article is a lot worse than I remember. I see why this was nominated for deletion. I took a look at earlier versions of the article to see if maybe things were better and they're not. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entrybyPaste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable chef that fails WP:GNG and WP:Basic. Has received minimal media coverage in reliable media. Only three notable media articles about him exist and of the three, one is interview [11] which does not count for notability leaving only two which is still below minimum requirement for WP:BLP. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's a legitimate candidate, duly elected by the Green Party of Alaska. All the other past years Green Party of Alaska candidates have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't see how we can delete this candidate's article, if the Green Parity has nominated her. It could be argued to delete, but Wikipedia doesn't come across well if they disqualify the officially elected candidates. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even have ballot access and have been decertified so I'm not even sure duly elected is accurate in this case. If you think WP:NPOLITICIAN needs addressing, I'd be thrilled to have that discussion somewhere appropriate, but that doesn't make a case for Sherman but rather for further cleanup. StarMississippi10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA on GPA OSE: Cynthia McKinney was a six term House member, Jill Stein received extensive coverage outside of her campaign and then we have Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. (David Cobb may need discussion, it takes more of a look than a quick scan). Jasmine Sherman has not yet attained coverage the way any of these have. I know you know this, you've been here approximately forever. But I still don't see merit here. StarMississippi11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteorredirectto2024 Green Party presidential primaries. The AK state party's previous candidates were also national candidates or otherwise notable outside this nomination. All coverage is about her participation in the primary, for which she got a whopping 72 votes, rather than substantively biographical. Reywas92Talk13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any mention about this film, not even in the references in the article. I suspect it may be a spelling mistake and in that case a redirect to Dost (1944 film) would be called for. But that is my speculation. As it stands, without any real references, the topic fails WP:GNGRuud Buitelaar (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-unsourced article of a football club that seems to have never played in the highest Slovak First Football League. I can't find any significant coverage of this club that meets WP:GNG. My Google searches, even with "site:.sk" next to the club's name, only come up with club's official website and match reports, the former of which is not independent. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia has been tagged for notability issues for years, which certainly may not help copy over English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The team played on the third tier continuously from 2014to2022, and participated in the national cup. That's usually more than enough to merit inclusion. They might not be called "TJ Rovinka" in the coverage, probably just Rovinka. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could we get more evaluation of the local coverage brought up by SportingFlyer and whether or not it is enough to satisfy our notability guidelines? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)15:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sportnet coverage that SportingFlyer points seems in-depth to me - there's many, many articles - but that's only one publications. But there's other sources out there as well, and frequent coverage of their matches. onetwo. Nfitz (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Had a good look for sources, plus information in general about this team. They most likely never played in the second tier of Slovak football either. Sport.sk seems to have nothing about them at all. Looking at the SME sources provided by SportingFlyer, I have summarized details of those references to aid the discussion here.
Sources linked on page discussed above by SportingFlyer
In a match against Rovinka, one opposition player got a piggy-back from a team-mate while their team was preparing to take a corner. The referee blew his whistle.
Amateur team Rovinka knocked fully-pro side Senica out of the national cup.
Yes
For me there are 6 instances (some overlapping) where I would argue for it being more than a trivial mention – see third column. In addition to the SME sources, the first source from Nfitz in their comment above (Deník) discusses a 2017 "Super Cup" match between winners of regional cups in the Czech Republic versus Slovakia. According to that, Rovinka played in that on account of having won the Bratislava football association cup beforehand, which I found a primary source for here. All in all, I feel this scrapes WP:GNG. More sources may of course exist. C67915:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided between Redirect and Keep, no support for a Deletion. It would be helpful to get feedback on the source analysis which seems to indicate adequate coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are a few minor gig announcements for this band, a few gig announcements for a different band, and a couple about lions in a zoo. Not useful for our purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They really existed and released a couple of albums, but unfortunately I can find little evidence that they received significant and reliable media coverage during their time. The current citations are for a one-paragraph album review, placeholders with no info in AllMusic, and a brief mention of a song being placed in a movie. They were mentioned occasionally in laundry lists of bands that worked with certain producers or at certain studios ([13], [14]), and a controversial album cover comes up sometimes in books about other controversies ([15]). In the Internet era they have a few bloggy notices of the "lost classic" variety ([16], [17]). Alas, I simply can't find enough reliable info with which to build an encyclopedic and biographical WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep, at worst a mergetoNeil Merryweather (which should survive these proceedings). The article already cites a short but independent Billboard review from 1972, and they also were covered by Penthouse contemporaneously ([18]) and Ink 19 more recently ([19]). That's enough for this to no longer be about AfD and instead to be about ATD. Chubbles (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both proposed Merge target articles are also the subjects of AFD discussions so they are not ideal Merge target article candidates. LizRead!Talk!20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, please see my comments about proposed Merge target articles which have also been sent to AFD. Right now, I don't see a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage except for a single article about its game published before the game was even released. This article was copied across a few websites. The article appears to be based on a press release, so even that coverage is not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 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, LizRead!Talk!01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites no sources and contains almost no prose. It claims to be about "Music in Dresden", but it contains only three timelines of classical music composers who allegedly "spent a significant amount of time in the German city of Dresden". It makes no mention of any other kind of music that may have existed at any time in that city. I don't think there is any hope for a reliably sourced version of this article that is anything more than a list of trivia. If there is such a hope, this article is probably not useful as a base for creating it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:SELCRIT, there is no clear selection criteria (having spent "a significant amount of time in Dresden" seems quite arbitrary). Without any sources to support it, it is a case of WP:TNT. The list could be recreated if an editor wants to define precise verifiable criteria for inclusion. In this state, it should not stay on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable, as is clear from the media attention she has received. This is not based on a single event, as WP:BLP1E typically applies to biographies of living persons. It's crucial to note that Babydog is not a person, and sources have featured her over many years. Articles from the New York Times and other sources confirm this coverage. The subject is part of public discourse, meeting the standards outlined in GNG. This justifies keeping the article.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes WP:GNG. Not to mention that BLP1E doesn't apply to non-humans, and she has coverage from multiple events from 2021 to 2024. It doesn't even make sense to merge into the 2024 RNC page like the nominator suggests, as this article only has two sentences about her appearance at the RNC. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Mentioned above this dog is notable per the recent and previous domestic media coverage, but now is viral sensation on social media, and has international attention from News Outlets in, Australia, India and more. This article has already gone above and beyond with suitable sources from multiple places in print, TV and video, including previous articles well before the recent RNC event in 2024, such as the "Do it for Babydog" Vaccine Lottery in 2021. As stated above by others, I agree that it meets the basic criteria for general notability. RedatopiaM (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Numerically, I do not see a major preference in catnames or main article titles, so a speedy rename per WP:C2CorWP:C2D will probably not apply, and we should have a full discussion. As this is an (indirect) follow-up to our recent CFR on Middle Ages by country (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Middle Ages by country), which resulted in a Rename all to Medieval history of Fooland, this precedent would favour option B. But the almost equally high frequency of Prehistoric Fooland including in main article titles should be taken into account. (A case could even be made that a debate should be had on which way WP:TITLECON should lean in the mainspace before we make our decision here, but we didn't do that for Middle Ages by country either). Whichever option we decide, I recommend leaving a redirect for all categories that we decide to rename, just like last time, in order to ease navigation and editing, and prevent duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per nom, but the pre-1866 "in Germany" categories should be renamed to "in the German Confederation" because Germany as a unified country did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some categories were not tagged; I will do so. If there are no further comments in a week, I would close this as merge/rename/delete as nominated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect should replace the target article so it uses title-case spelling. Article is about a specific proprietary system, not the general concept; the sentence-case spelling can redirect to Warehouse management system, which is the general concept. Tule-hog (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in my searches, the primary topic is actually Big Rigs, an Australian magazine that at first glance might be notable (I've not looked deeper than that) but which doesn't have an article. The semi-truck page does have a hatnote to the dab page, which lists the video game prominently however that is two clicks rather than none. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on a related note, I've just created Bigrig as a redirect to Bigrigg (a village in the UK) and added a hatnote to the truck and dab page, but I debated with myself which target is best so feel free to discuss if you think I made the wrong choice. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's if you ignore the fact that smash for 3ds and that other console are both commonly referred to as "sm4sh", and clumped together as two different flavors of the same installment by pretty much everyone less pedantic than me. ironically, nintendo considers them to be separate, but even the article reduces that to note c, accompanied by "but who cares about those guys, most sources say they're both smash 4" cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)11:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that changes that its a plausible search term, with sourcing and notes to clear up confusion. Again, I'm not saying its the sixth title. I'm not arguing anyone should think that. I'm saying its a plausible redirect because some people think that, and some sources outline it. Sergecross73msg me13:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target does not state that it is the sixth entry in the series instead of the fifth. This redirect will be misleading when a sixth Super Smash Bros. game is released. Mia Mahey (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced mention of how some consider it the sixth entry could be very easily implemented. Additionally, there's no need to right now future-proof the article for a future game that hasn't even been announced to exist yet. Sergecross73msg me23:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People searching for Super Smash Bros. 6 are most likely looking for information on a successor of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. No information on such game exists in the target article, or for that matter, anywhere on Wikipedia, so the redirect is harmful and should be deleted per WP:COSTLY. Mia Mahey (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with that notion. Why would people be searching for an unannounced game that currently isn't know to exist with this search term? And if someone was knowledgeable enough to use a relatively rare search term like "Smash Bros 6" in a search bar, they'd be knowledgeable enough to understand what Smash Bros Ultimate is. So your confusion scenario feels rather far fetched to me, I don't know what sort of person this would apply to. Doubly so since I've maintained the Ultimate page since its inception and thus has not been a common issue. Sergecross73msg me02:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. There's never been any discussion or consensus that Mario Kart is handling it correctly either, so it's no standard to aspire to. It's just an WP:OSE-violating comparison. Sergecross73msg me13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Super Smash Bros for 3DS and Super Smash Bros for Wii U are both Smash 4, and neither are Smash 5. They did release on separate days, with Wii U being released after 3DS, but they were released literally two months apart, were clearly developed together, and they have several methods of transferring data between the two platforms; it's highly probable that they only released separately due to delays. They also share a Wikipedia page, shared advertising space, pretty much everywhere you go they're talked about as one unit instead of two separate games-- much like, for example, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team, another instance of one game with two names on two different Nintendo consoles with different capabilities. (If you throw out the 'two different consoles' thing, pretty much any first-of-the-gen Pokemon game in the history of ever, from Pokemon Red and Blue all the way to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet are examples of this in action. (Like, what, are you saying that Pokémon Emerald is Pokemon 13 or something???)
Again, you're both arguing what's "correct" instead of arguing what's plausible. Whether it's the correct numbering is irrelevant. Some people (not me) believe it to be true, and the alternative is a game that doesn't even exist. We don't need to future proof for scenarios that may not ever even happen. It can be easily and quickly fixed as things potentially change someday. Sergecross73msg me00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - only mention of "Smash Bros. 6" on Wikipedia is from that article, talking about a Bandai Namco recruitment page stating: The recruitment page consisted of a listing for programmers for "Smash Bros. 6", which was expected to be released in 2015 for both the Wii U and Nintendo 3DS", which is likely why the redirect exists in the first place. It being mentioned there is just a happy coincidence though - the main reason why I am saying it should go to Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate rather than Super Smash Bros. Ultimate directly is because the lengthy discussions above shows that there is ambiguity that SB6 would refer to Ultimate or some future/non-existent game, and Super Smash Bros.#2015–2021: Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is directly above a "Future" section, so this redirect would cover both bases. As an aside, I don't think the above discussions need to be continued - regardless of anyone's views, I think the outcome is obvious that there's no clear primary topic - we now just need to find the best way of disambiguating. BugGhost🪲👻08:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled with the other two redirects as suggested above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These need retargetting, as these are not specific to UCAV. Military drones can be unarmed, such as the Global Hawk, and most target drones (Q-planes) like the QF-4 (retired fighter converted to target drone). Armed drones are not restricted to UCAVs, such as sea drones operated by Ukraine that have sunk many Russian ships. On the Ukrainian battlefield, armed and unarmed land drones (unmanned ground vehicle -- UGV) also are being used, as are armed and unarmed aerial drones (UAV - unmanned aerial vehicle). Both the US and China have demonstrated drone tanks and robot dogs with machine guns. Police have tracked ground drones armed with shotguns, so not just militaries have armed drones. UXOD and landmine clearing also use military ground drones.
It looks like this template is completely redundant nowadays. It seems that it was created to handle cross-wiki rename requests or something back in Ye Olde Days before Single-User Login was invented (checking if a user who wanted username X was the same as the user with username X on the other language wiki). However, with SUL now being a thing, this template seemingly hasn't been used since 2010 (no transclusions since december 2010), so it should be safe to subst out all 5 remaining uses of this and then delete this template (along with its redirect, {{ver}}) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits)10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not needed and is not even really being used to experiment with anything. This should just go to the relevant page about the Illinois Democratic primary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only two participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a task force of WikiProject Cricket might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Dardistan task force of WikiProject South Asia might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single artist) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Ledisi task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
