Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

8 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 07	October 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Better Days (Robbie Seay Band album)

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

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

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

Articles about albums, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. As usual, Wikipedia's approach to albums used to extend an automatic presumption of notability to any album that was recorded by a notable artist regardless of sourcing or the lack thereof, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been deprecated, and an album now has to have a meaningful notability claim (chart success, notable music awards, a significant volume of coverage and analysis about it, etc.) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But none of these three albums are making any notability claim above and beyond "this is an album that exists", two of the three are completely unreferenced, and the one that does have references doesn't have good ones: it's citing one review in an unreliable source, and one "Billboard chart history" that lists no actual chart positions and is present only to footnote a release date that it doesn't actually support rather than any charting claims.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more expertise in Christian music than I've got can find the right kind of sourcing to salvage them, but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt an album from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 1 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!} 06:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spies Are Forever

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

Not notable. No significant coverage. No reliable sources. No continuance of performance. Only YouTube clips, Twitter, primary website and 2 reviews in non-notable media for initial small run. A lot of information about a very small production with very little sources. Maineartists (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Music. Maineartists (talk) 8:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Ventures

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

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the creator of the page is User:Warwickventures which would appear to have undisclosed COI issues. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 1 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!} 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Diamond Garden Centres

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:GNG and claim to WP:NCORP is none existent. Sources are 100% primary to the garden and its partners. It may be the largest garden chain but it clearly fails notability. Piscili (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that industry pages for like (and smaller) garden centre operators do not appear to be subject to deletion discussion including British Garden Centres Notcutts & Bents Garden Centre. Outside of garden centre retail there are many other pages for retail businesses with a much lesser profile eg L&F Jones, Ugo (retailer) being a couple of examples. Asterixthegaul (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument won't pass muster here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from that link “ While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ”

and

” In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia”

This specific article is written in a similar form to other articles on Garden Centre chains within the UK. Notoriety in this industry from examination of national news, appears to derive from commercial failure. Asterixthegaul (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent. None of those have been through a deletion discussion. If you want this article kept, you need to focus on sources. We are looking for multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Are you aware of any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 2 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!} 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbhav

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

Fails the WP:NEVENTS, a particular annual event of a law college Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 sources and all are poor. Source 1 has no coverage or even passing mention about the subject. Source 2 is deadlink. Source 3 has entry and Source 4 is a deadlink. No sources on the page with significant coverage to pass notability and this page also seems like promotion of an event held by law school students in Pune India. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A poorly sourced article about a student campus event. Searches find notices and PR infused notes about the participants "zeal and fervour", etc. In the absence of clear evidence that this particular student event is of wider notability, a redirect to Symbiosis_Law_School#Student_life where this is mentioned would seem a reasonable alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Society

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

Fails WP:ORG. Of the 14 sources given, only 3 are not self-published by the Stalin Society or its affiliates. Of the 3 sources that are not primary sources, the Stalin Society is only mentioned in passing, as an affiliation of individuals the authors are criticising. A search on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar returns zero reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the organisation. Yue🌙 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Orange sticker (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage isn’t great but without too much searching I found this from The Independent, this Google book snippet and this from an independent (hostile) source. The article itself is well-written, neutral and discusses the society’s views by (correctly) referencing its own statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That piece by The Independent is cited in the article, but it suffers from the same issue as the book excerpt you linked: the coverage isn't in-depth. A lot of failed political candidates and local quacks would have their own articles if mere mentions sufficed. Yue🌙 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On no other platform (pardon the pun), could I imagine defending (and again!) The Stalin Society, but here goes. So the archive of the Weekly Worker (weekly newspaper of the CPGB) turns up quite an amount of material (eg Stalin Society v CPGB). The Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century p.167 has a small entry on the Society. Johann Hari had a full page, 800 word piece from 2002 in the New Statesman: "Comrades up in arms" 6 October 2002, Vol. 131 Issue 4591, p28. This 2014 piece "Void Pasts and Marginal Presents: On Nostalgia and Obsolete Futures in the Republic of Georgia" from Slavic Review has multiple mentions and discussions of the Stalin Society in Georgia. Pasess the WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the reliability and notability of some of the sources you brought up.
- The Weekly Worker is not the paper of the CPGB; it is the paper of an offshoot of an offshoot (NCP) of the CPGB, the CPGB-PCC. Those Wikipedia articles themselves lack significant coverage from reliable sources. A supermajority of the sources in both articles are from the CPGB-PCC or its sister organisations praising the CPGB-PCC.
- I am not surprised that the "Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations" contains a mention of the Stalin Society. But how is that mention significant or notable? I would argue that is not, given it is merely a brief mention.
- Admittedly a weaker rebuttal with this final point, but I would contend that, although a journalist covered the organisation in detail, there is still no obvious point of notability given in this Wikipedia article or otherwise. What has the Society done?
- Some of the previous editors of this Wikipedia article seem to believe that the British Stalin Society is the same Stalin Society in every other country. Do reliable sources make this connection? Is the Georgian and Bangladeshi Stalin Societies, for example, under the British one? Or are they merely inspired?
Yue🌙 18:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing for a Keep, please note the comments from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 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!} 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Beres

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

A PROD would certainly be rejected. A WP:BEFORE search turns little to nothing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I get 290 hits on Newspapers.com, including the fairly substantial Mark I. Pinsky, "School of Thought: Hindu University begins journey in teaching... with a degree of karma", The Hilton Head Island Packet (July 3, 2004), p. 1-C, 3-C, and Amy Limbert, "Kuldip Gupta, 66, helped found, lead Hindu University of America", The Orlando Sentinel (February 9, 2007), p. B6. Also, "Hinduism: Studying the ancients", The Atlanta Constitution (September 28, 1996), p. G4; "Beavercreek: Online Hindu classes", Dayton Daily News (January 9, 2021), p. B3. BD2412 T 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Plus the clash between editors about it being promo (see history) makes me uneasy. The Banner talk 14:19, 6 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!} 05:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Raw

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC, there is some material online about him but none of it mentions things needed to support notability. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Corner, Indiana

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

According to Baker, an early post office, Now just a crossroads. Not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Aerospace Quality Group

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

Nominated for deletion as all of the results from a WP:BEFORE search returned purely trivial mentions of the subject meaning that this article cannot possibly have the potential to pass GNG. This could be a good addition to a list page related to the field of aerospace engineering, however according to guidelines, this article does not fit Wikipedias mission. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Aviation, Spaceflight, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge isn't going to work - this is enormous. (311kb!) If it's to be a redirect, please specify where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel the improvements made by Tintor2 justifies this to be kept. Does it need clean up? Sure, but it's not bad enough for a merge, or a TNT, for that matter. MoonJet (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tintor2: Can you show me the three strongest sources in your opinion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to clean up the article it would be the bike meme, how his story inspired a Game designer to join SNK, and iconic was he being the first crossover character for Fatal Fury Special. There is also Capcom's response Tintor2 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is, can you show me the three links that demonstrate the subject's notability the best - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000311.000028651.html

https://blog.playstation.com/2017/08/29/art-of-fighting-anthology-hits-ps4-today-the-origins-of-an-snk-classic/

https://www.gamesradar.com/exploring-the-legacy-of-fatal-fury-the-legendary-fighting-game-series-thats-returning-after-23-years/

https://www.4gamer.net/games/334/G033456/20190723069/ Tintor2 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it kept. But. PRTimes = press release reprint, so fails requirement for being independent (and even then what I see there would fail SIGCOV, those are just some passing mentions in list). Blog = well, blogs are not reliable. gamesradar - one paragraph, very borderline SIGCOV, just a comment on how his apperance was kept a secret as a marketing gimmick for one game at some point. The last source translates very badly, seems like some rambling gibberish - how is this reliable and SIGCOV? I am sorry, I want to see this kept, but those are not three best sources, they seem like three worst sources. Or if they are three best, I am sorry, but this is a trainwreck that I'll have to pile on and vote delete (well, redirect>delete). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead following user's comments and trimmed the reception into the most important parts. I made paragraphs about how he was received in Art of Fighting , the meme, the cultural impact he has in Fatal Fury and gaming in general, and one paragraph solely focused on KOF and Mr. Karate's alter ego.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2 Can you show here at least two sources that meet RS and SIGCOV and cover those topics? Who talks about his cultural impact, for exmaple? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i already did above. If you want a scholar we have https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Ryo+Sakazaki+snk&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1728298977936&u=%23p%3DkqAvHc1XJycJ Tintor2 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for the improvements made. I'm AGF'ing a bit, as so many of the sources are non-English. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 8 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.

CiberCuba

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

I originally G11'd this article. In addition to maintaining that this is pure advertising, I have been unable to find significant coverage of this media outlet. Source assessment:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
[1]	NYT	NYT	brief mention about the site being made inaccessible in Cuba
[2]	based on outlet's reporting	BBC	crediting the outlet for reporting on the name of a person
[3]		deprecated; see WP:MARTI
[4]	USA Today	USA Today	does not mention the outlet
[5]	based on the outlet's reporting	NYT	crediting outlet with reporting on transport of dolphins
[6]	direct quotation of the outlet	BBC	brief mention in article about an ostrich meme
[7]	article subject's site
[8]	article subject's site
[9]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	Washington Post	brief quotations from the outlet
[10]	quotes an interview that the outlet did with Joe Biden	France 24	brief quotations from the outlet
[11]	list of Marco Rubio's articles on outlet's website
[12]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Telemundo
[13]	television news story based on outlet's reporting and interview with its reporter	Univision
[14]	article subject's site
[15]	English translation of SembraMedia article published by the Global Investigative Journalism Network	SembraMedia appears to be an advocacy organization and it's not clear how independent they are from funders.	borderline
[16]	Pulitzer Center		does not mention the outlet
[17]	News Whip	appears to be reliable	briefly mentions how many news interactions it has had
[18]	article subject's site
[19]	Cubadebate.cu	first image in the article looks like a conspiracy theory web	brief mention in a quote from another source
[20]	Fidel Castro fansite	Fidel Castro fansite

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Cuba. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article has a promotional tone and structure. However, in reviewing the sources during New Page Review, I considered the Radio Marti story and the Global Investigative Journalism Network story to constitute SIGCOV, which is why I removed the notability tag. However, I did not realize that RSN had deprecated Radio Marti a couple months ago, which would obviously make this ineligible to contribute to GNG. As a result, I won't object to deletion here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 @Oaktree b@Voorts If Radio Martí was deprecated a few months ago, but the source you're referring to predates the deprecation, it doesn't necessarily mean that all articles from Radio Martí should automatically be deprecated? or bold yes? 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's coverage here [21] and here [22], but it's mostly just briefly discussing the site. I'm not sure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment voorts, Dclemens1971, Oaktree b - if Radio Marti was deprecated a few months ago, but the source is older, does that mean all the articles from that Radio should be deprecated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.154.172 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Deprecation applies to the source no matter when it was written unless otherwise stated, not just after the date of depracation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you looking at exactly on Radio Marti? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP editor is referring to the fact that the Radio Marti article cited here pre-dates its deprecation. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was only depreciated as a source in April 2024 [23]. I would look for better sources if you have them; we could consider articles from before April 2024, but it wouldn't be the best choice. Meaning, we can use them, but in addition to other, better sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deprecated in May when I closed the RfC deprecating it. The deprecation was not limited to May 2024 forward and my understanding is that deprecation is retroactive/applies to any of the source's articles unless otherwise stated (for example, the New York Post deprecation is limited to a particular time period), so we can't consider any articles from the source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply for the fact that I can't find extensive coverage about this news source. I've found a few book references, but those are rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts The article in Pullitzer Center clearly defines the source as CiberCuba, there is a link to the history in Spanish in Cibercuba and the Cibercuba logo is displayed prominently in the headline. Reference [16] [24]https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/anguish-and-heartache-over-2015-building-collapse-havana-spanish

In this article from IWPR: [25]https://iwpr.net/global-voices/cubas-internet-blocked-pages-and-chinese-tech also mentioned CiberCuba as well as others.

This study from USENIX, mentions CiberCuba as one of sites censored in Cuba: [26]https://www.usenix.org/system/files/usenixsecurity24-ablove.pdf

The State Department, in its 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom in Cuba cites CiberCuba, in the Section III, Status of Societal Respect for Religious Freedom

The US Embassy in Cuba cites CiberCuba (twice) in its report 2020: Informe de los Derechos Humanos – Cuba: [27]https://cu.usembassy.gov/es/embassy/official-reports/hrr-2020/

There are more references, but I do not know if this is the right place to send this. Lockincuba (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether CiberCuba should have its own Wikipedia article under the guideline for companies. Specifically, this discussion is about whether there has been in-depth coverage of CiberCuba in independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Merely being cited by another source of briefly mentioned by that source does not qualify.

I see that this is your first post on Wikipedia. How did you learn about this discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this "delete" dicussion in the top of Cibercuba wikipedia page.

I appreciate your answer with a link to "Notability", I see your point.

My answer were more in the sense to complete the table that is posted above in this disscussion, and the issues cited there.

I do not know if there are in depth articles about Cibercuba. I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia.

I know this is not a typical source but you could see how Cibercuba compares to other media: [28]https://www.similarweb.com/es/website/cibercuba.com/competitors/

Sorry if it is not what you were asking. Lockincuba (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this: [29]https://gijn.org/stories/14-independent-news-sites-changing-cuban-journalism/ , it is not just about Cibercuba, but it provides some information about them. Lockincuba (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe tha a local media that is widely cited (even in major international outlets or GOV sites) or even in Wikipedia (hundreds of references in Wikipedia point to Cibercuba both in english and spanish), and consistently have a large audience (of cubans or related to Cuba) is notable, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, that a topic has received in depth coverage. Being cited by Wikipedia or other sources does not establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really interesting this Notability thing. I just found this guide Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which give us a slighty different approach to a news site like Cibercuba and specificcally address the issue at the core of this discussion, and I quote:

"Newspapers can have a significant impact on the areas they serve, and in representing those areas to the wider world. Because its impact may be felt over a long period of time, a newspaper may be very significant, without attracting the kind of general review in other publications that would most handily fulfill Wikipedia's general notability guideline.... Additionally, while newspapers and magazines may review and critique other works of non-fiction (books, documentaries, scholarly works) it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms."

Although there are some points to consideer that are not available about Cibercuba, being and independent (censored) organization in Cuba, there are specific points that are relevant to them, among them:

- It is referred to in one or more strong reliable sources as the newspaper of record for a certain locale, in the reputational (i.e., subjective) sense.

- Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources

- Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources

In any case I also found some articles in other media that gives specific coveraga to issues where Cibercuba team were the actual news:

[30]https://www.14ymedio.com/internacional/mariela-castro-reporteros-conferencia-espana_1_1052659.html

[31]https://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/america-latina/cuba-es/article222703500.html

[32]https://cpj.org/2020/01/cuban-reporter-iliana-hernandez-charged-with-illeg/

[33]https://www.14ymedio.com/cuba/ayuda-matthew-cuba-baracoa-damnificados_1_1060447.html

[34]https://www.diariolasamericas.com/cultura/artistas-celebran-aniversario-cibercubaen-miami-n4126518

[35]https://www.americateve.com/exitosos-emprendedores-cubanos-quieren-abrir-oficinas-cuba-n885575

I even found a Master thesis in an Spain university that it is focused in compare Cibercuba and Cubadebate (one official/goverment funded news organization):

Communication of risk and crisis in the digital press from the informative treatment: A study of the fire in the largest fuel depot in Cuba in the Cubadebate and Cibercuba media

[36]https://idus.us.es/bitstream/handle/11441/155643/TFMCyC_comunicacionderiesgo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Hope this will help the "case" of Cibercuba deserving a place in the Wikipedia. I truly believe it belong here.

Thanks Lockincuba (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the sources you shared establish notability under the notability guideline for corporations. The WikiProject Newspapers essay on notability that you cited has not gained consensus in the community. here is my assessment of the new sources:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
[37]	14ymedio	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website		article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[38]	El Nuevo Herald			article is about the publication's staff being kicked out of an event
[39]	Committee to Protect Journalists statement advocating for dropping charges against CiberCuba reporter	advocacy organization
[40]	14ymedio post that clearly takes a side on a political issue and is aligned with CiberCuba	It appears that most sources talk about the outlet in terms of how it has been dealt with by the Castro government; there's no clear editorial standards on their website	brief mention about Change.org petition and censorship
[41]	Diario Las Américas article that appears to largely rely upon interviews/information obtained from CiberCuba journalists			article is about the publication's third birthday event
[42]	América TeVé article that recounts a panel talk where a CiberCuba editor spoke
[43]		master's theses are not reliable sources

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Even if there is not consensus the page was keep there, linked and it express an issue common to all news organizacions: "it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms, therefore I believe should be taken into account.

I found some precense of CiberCuba in TV with interviews:

- Interview of the TV program of America Teve dedicated in exclusive to some espionage documents revealed by Cibercuba, with two of their journalists: [44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mf6xo3z9iI

- Another interview of a Cibercuba journalist about corruption in a Cuban medical organization: [45]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzzadyr5l8&t=49s

I found some coverage in the officialist media of the cuban regime to criticize Cibercuba work. There are articles in .cu, domains (which are all official cuban organizations), tryong to discredit Cibercuba work. Are those critics notable coverage?

I tried to replicate your tablewith the references that were not included, but it did not work:

| GIJN || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| IWPR || Yes || Yes || Yes || ? || ?

|-

| Usenix || Yes || No || No || ? || ?

|-

| U.S. Department of State || Yes || Yes|| No || ? || ?

|-

| The US Embassy in Cuba || Yes || Yes || No || ? || ?

|} Lockincuba (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not customary for newspapers themselves to receive the sort of reviews and critiques that often inform notability in other non-fiction realms This is the opinion of some people in the WikiProject that wrote that essay, and it's an opinion that I happen to disagree with. Notable newspapers are regularly written about in nonfiction books, magazines, other newspapers, etc. Relying on another newspaper's reporting or interviewing its journalists about a story or reporting on a story that the outlet broke are not, however, secondary, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the US embassy, the Cuban government, and official Cuban media/outlets loyal to the Cuban state are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact checking that have editorial guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and if Ecured exists, it is an unreliable encyclopedia because this alternative and very relevant dissident media cannot exist in being supervisors of the Cuban dictatorship. My position is to maintain. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A news web site with millions monthly pageviews Similarweb, a verified Facebook page with 3.5 million followers CiberCuba FB page, with 260K indexed pages in Google, more that 10 years producing news, where THE two US presidential candidates where interviewed in 2020 Donald Trump interview, Joe Biden interview, as well as US senantors, mayors and other tp level politicians, with their news cited by the thousands in international media, including NY Times, BBC, France 24, Washignton Post, Telemundo and many others (see links above), with hundreds of citations in Wikipedia (where coincidentally, some pages were created in great part based on references from CiberCuba), with citations in the US state department and other .GOV sites its by all standards Notable. As Dan Rather said: “The best journalists are not part of the story; they are observers who gather facts and relay them.”.

Lockincuba (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion but only one firm !vote for deletion so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Alla SC

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

A club in the fourth division, which places it in a non-professional league. The article is significantly lacking in secondary sources, aside from those pertaining to statistics and standard coverage. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for the reasons outlined in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To provide some context, I plan on creating articles for Jordanian clubs that have participated in the Jordanian Second Division League, to which Deir Alla have in 2022. I set this as my limit, given that third-tier clubs and above participate in the Jordan FA Cup and there are no actively fourth-tier teams that participate in the national cup, unlike in some other countries. I don't plan on creating articles of teams that have only played in the fourth tier (i.e. the Jordanian Third Division League), as they are not notable enough to be discussed as an article.

As for the lack of "secondary sources", the vast majority of sources from that article comes from news articles that talk about the club. Zalata42 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Properly referenced to passes in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me - including if anyone can translate the ones currently on the article. Giant Snowman 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Raghanti

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

Biological anthropologist with an h-factor of 34 and no major awards, created on Oct 2 by a user with (currently) 30 edits. Page is a badly written stub without much information. She has a good career, but I am not convinced she is notable as yet. Page was tagged for notability by User:Ipigott on Oct 3 and I draftified it on Oct 4. Tags removed and page moved to mainspace on Oct 7; claim by original author that she is notable, with no further explanation, attempt to meet any of WP:NPROF or reach concensus. Only possible notability claim is as a co-author of an Ig-nobel prize paper. I am not sure if we consider that enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brief ping of @Ipigott to ensure they get a notice. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability seems possible. Her CV lists multiple news stories (last 2 pages) that might prove notability. Two I pulled out quickly: Science article covering her research and written summary from an audio/radio interview on public radio. She's also an elected fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science and has an article explaining why she was elected to AAAS on EurekAlert but originally posted on Kent University's site, but not self written. She is an Ig Nobel Prize Winner and last author usually conveys a larger part in the paper (although she isn't the corresponding author).

Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Fellow of the AAAS is enough for WP:PROF#C3, her citations are at least enough to make a case for #C1, the IgNobel may not be a major award but it carries a lot of publicity, and she's had a fair amount of other publicity for her work: along with the sources listed above, here are a couple more in Smithsonian and Scientific American. Bad nomination and bad draftification, as many of these signs and sources for notability were already present in the draftified version. It was very stubby but not badly sourced for what it was. You'll be lucky if the article author persists in contributing here rather than getting bitten by your bad nomination piled onto a bad draftification and leaving the project forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality criterion

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

Lack of notability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Voting criteria and the "Compliance of selected single-winner methods" table in Comparison of voting rules. I found two more sources that mention the criterion. [46] p 58. Also mentioned [47] p 99. It seems like it may not meet WP:GNG, but the content of the article would be helpful there. McYeee (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firestorm enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawkman enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (DC Comics)

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

WP:BEFORE shows some very minor coverage that does not provide more than story details or existence. This does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Huaguo

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

WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Magicians characters

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

The article is mostly unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE did not indicate WP:SIGCOV but I could understand a redirect to The Magicians (American TV series). Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harper's Island characters

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

Article has no reliable sources and WP:BEFORE did not find WP:SIGCOV. I could contemplate a redirect to Harper's Island as an WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Deipnosophistae

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

WP:BEFORE finds that most of these are barely mentioned. Article describes itself as an "index" and "minor", making it difficult to obtain WP:SIGCOV. I would consider a redirect to Deipnosophistae and thought it was best to discuss WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the structure of the Deipnosophistae and the existence of Category:Lists of minor fictional characters, the page deserves to be preserved. It can be also enlarged in order to obtain Wikipedia:SIGCOV. The alternative is to add the content to the page of the Deipnosophistae. Digitalphilologist (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Beattie

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

Found no news articles on her. Only reliable mentions online are passing mentions from books about her role in the boy in the striped pajamas. Only sources this article had beforehand were Twitter and LinkedIn. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dewair (1606)

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

This article is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK from Mughal conquest of Mewar. There was no need to create this standalone article as the content is already present in the other article. Hence it should be deleted. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughal conquest of Mewar per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benares brass

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

"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contested PROD (I opposed it).

I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular brass alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.

But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Varanasi: Borderline notable at best, and would be much more suitable as part of the city's article per WP:NOPAGE, similar to how Moradabad does not have a separate page for its highly recognized brass industry. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear more opinions and also feedback on the Merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput wars

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

This article is a poor WP:CONTENTFORK (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) from several articles like Rajput Rebellion (1708–1710), Rathore rebellion (1679–1707) and List of battles in Rajasthan. The individual topic like Battle of Khanwa has been stitched together to create an article suggesting that something like Mugal Rajput wars were a single homogeneous event spread over the different period of time. The individual topics are isolated events and a duplication from the List of battles in Rajasthan. So it should be deleted and content if anything that is here but not in List of battles in Rajasthan should be merged to latter. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like so many Maratha/Mughal articles recently, a hopeless mix of WP:SYNTH, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 8 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 speedy delete‎ per G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algarvian Portuguese

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

Attempted draftification, though perhaps the moving back into mainspace was unintended. I don't know what the notability standards for would be for a dialect, but it's actually been over an hour, no sources have been added, and the only source I could find on Google that was referring to the Algarvian dialect, and not Algarvian craft beer or the resilience of Algarvian culture was a blog post that was posted to a couple of websites. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The republication in mainspace was, indeed, unintended. --I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:02, 8 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.