Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 July 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

< July 24	July 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes

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

Not needed, everything here is already in Nick Fuentes. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show still notable, tons of reliable sources covering it. If someone started a podcast that thousands and thousands of people listen to, and Millions of people heard of, and it's a dangerous podcast because of the anti-semitism, it should be covered to inform the audience. Yeah there's an article about the person Nick Fuentes, but I don't see a problem in covering the web-show. So many people created political shows and they have an article about them and their show. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hammer

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, United Kingdom, and Australia. Tacyarg (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

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

Unnecessary fork. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Many of these articles have already been deleted, see AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all others to Montserrat at the Commonwealth Games. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tya Jané Ramey

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

Just another run of the mill model with scant general notability and nothing that I can see that satisfies WP:ENT Blanes tree (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Trinidad and Tobago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Haider

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE (a search for sources turned up little to no coverage beyond the initial reporting when the boy sadly died); and so fails WP:NEVENT. The previous AfD ended in no-consensus; but I think there's little to doubt about the lack of persistence of coverage anymore now, over two years later. Java Hurricane 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Java Hurricane 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also adding this quote from WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Astaire (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlos Savvidis

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

Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Conservatives

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survay Says!

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find some reviews, but they're from non-RS. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New Jersey. toweli (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma

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

Not notable enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [1], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic_voting#Influence_of_voting_method might work as a merge target, if merged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure WP:SYNTH, is simply WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article since it is related to several different pages, and I thought it is more convenient to have a single page linked from all these pages, than to include it in each page. If it cannot stand on its own, then I support, as a second-best option, to Merge it as a subsection into one of the pages that links to it, e.g. Approval voting or Bullet voting or 1800 United States presidential election or Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join Java

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Sports

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and Nigeria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Ali Zardari Flyover

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

Fails GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly advertisement . — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florinel Sandu

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

I was not able to find WP:SIGCOV sources for this footballer. The best I could find was this. Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company (interviews), there is no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Nigeria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXBE-FM

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

No evidence this radio station passes WP:NCORP. Sources are unreliable or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 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[2], Choona[3], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[4], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[5] and Sutliyan[6], 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. — 48 JCL 16:46, 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[7], 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.
9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, 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]

The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 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.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48 JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated 48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) 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 untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — 48 JCL 23:35, 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?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — 48 JCL 11:56, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

You have a bizarre contribution history. Typical of a sock puppet. WP:SOCK 9t5 (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicontriiiiibute —- to the closing editor, this account is likely best kept unconsidered. The user has a very short and very opinionated history of solely AfD discussions. 🂡🂡9t5 05:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply original research and IDONTLIKEIT to determine an actor's role by subjective assessment. Based on both the official billings and the sources, the subject person was listed among the main cast of Choona ([8][9][10][11]) and Paatal Lok ([12][13][14][15]), as well as part of the ensemble cast with a credit of "Also Featuring" in Call Me Bae ([16][17][18]). Large productions can have a large main cast. For instance, a season of The Boys can have a total of 16 actors in main roles, while A Murder at the End of the World has a total of 13 actors in main roles. The main roles are officially credited, and their position in the billing does not matter at all. A main role will not be diminished to a recurring or supporting role simply because the actor is not credited front enough.

Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by Scroll.in,[19] and mentioned in multiple reviews,[20][21] which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:

The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:

For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development [...] Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.

For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.

For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.

For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.

There is nothing for me to describe or persuade, as a credited main role would not be diminished simply because of subjective disagreements. If someone comment on why they consider it is main or it is supporting, this is called original research. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India[22] or Tellychakkar [23][24], albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times[25], Indian Express[26], Mid-Day[27], Yahoo! News[28], Sakshi[29], etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources i find are interviews [30]and [31]. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfest

AfDs for this article:

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

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 entry by Paste, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Webcomics. ~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]

Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.

Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.

I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG and has numerous sustained sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[32] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
https://web.archive.org/web/20170202032914/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/required-reading-40-of-the-best-webcomics.html			Six sentences in a listicle of 40 items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222023014/https://www.wired.com/2009/08/10-great-webcomics-you-should-not-share-with-your-kids-geekdad-wayback-machine/			Five sentences in a listicle of 10 items	✘ No
https://sinfest.net/news.php (redirects to a site on Wikipedia's blacklist)	The subject's website	Self-published source		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170707021326/https://www.themarysue.com/40-webcomics-you-need-to-read/2/			Three sentences in a listicle of 40 items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090615151041/https://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6663678.html?nid=2789&source=link&rid=1907919383	Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject			✘ No
Webcomics. Bloomsbury Comics Studies.	? Offline source I do not have access to.	Nominator says "in his blog [the source] made clear he did not do any research for this."	? Offline source I do not have access to.	✘ No
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html	Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180310090252/http://www.patreon.com/sinfest	The subject's blog post	Self-published source		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141027235626/http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm			Artist name and title of work simply listed three times in a list of 115+ other items	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110611141712/http://www.bt.no/bergenpuls/litteratur/Debuterer-i-Tommy-og-Tigeren-2285615.html			Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Elspea756 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's book coverage from 2013 [33] and 2020 [34]. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep it seeing that we already have one wikipedia page for Stonetoss. Why not keep Sinfest as a page?96.241.99.133 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per source assessment. Felicia (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Burian

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

With only primary sources listed, the article of this men's footballer clearly fails WP:GNG. He played nine minutes at the highest domestic league before being sent on loan to second tier then disappeared. Using the keyword "Oliver Burian", search engines mostly find other men of the same name than this footballer, failing WP:V too. My searches showed nothing better than match reports and passing mentions in online newspapers. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no basis for an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems that he hasn't disappeared completely, but moved to the third, and now, fourth tier of Slovak football (non-league). At that level there is no chance of new significant coverage, and agree that anything existing is far below the required standard. C 679 15:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mexico City Grand Prix

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

Too early to establish notability. Typical practice is to start the article the week of the race, which tends to be when reliable sources begin to exist about the race. This event takes place in 3 month and there is no evidence of this meeting WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to 2024 Formula One World Championship as it was before. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily restore redirect - Standard practice is already in place here for a reason. Page shouldn't be created until the week of the event. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We have zero information because it is a few months away and it fails the Wikipedia Crystal Ball policy. Felicia (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – No reason to delete. This was and should be a redirect. It could've been dealt with proactively—with a revert—instead of opening a whole AfD. MSport1005 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted to a redirect but then the user reinstated the article. Thought it best to get consensus in the easiest way possible instead of edit warring. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any.do

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

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Software, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite what @Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Eme

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

I'm surprised this article made it through the draft review process, given that the subject has zero press coverage outside a few paid Nigerian blogs and the accolade "Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria" doesn't seem like a particularly notable award. On the contrary it sounds quite sexist. Blanes tree (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria is clearly a notable award, sexist maybe, but surely no more or less than any other national beauty pagent. But WP:NMODEL isn't met with just one notable award, so WP:SIGCOV must be met. Vanguard can be considered marginally reliable when, as in this case, the article is not explicity paid content. Curiously, I couldn't find a previous discussion on von.gov.ng or RadioNigeria but maybe them being state outlets count for something? Even then the articles are pretty short, bordering on routine. So I am on the fence here. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Rafael

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Searching only uncovers further database sources and a very limited number of primary sources. C 679 12:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. C 679 12:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memaliaj Massacre

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article, nor does it have any international coverage that I could find. I previously nominated this same page yesterday, but decided to withdraw my nomination since it was moved to draftspace by Drmies immediately after. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I honestly don't know what User:AlbanianEditor1990 was thinking, first when they created it in article space, and second, when they moved it back to article space. The history reflects that I tried to indicate some of the things that were wrong with the article, but to no avail. Here's the thing: the article is in such poor condition that it looks obviously not-notable (and I added the only source in it), but who knows, it might be on a notable topic--better sourcing could make that an easier decision. If I had the choice I'd move this back to draft space, and warn the editor to stop doing this, because it is headed toward deletion. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of St Columba

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

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel WP:BEFORE wasn't performed. With a quick glance, a lot material appears in searches. Have a look at this book, albeit not a perfect WP:RS, gives clear notability indications. [35] is clearly indepth coverage, published by Gill and Macmillan. --Soman (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I did a before search for references and Betty's Travel Journals is not even close to sufficient... As for [36] this is the wrong organisation, the Knights of St Columba should not be confused with the Knights of Columbus and Knights of Saint Columbanus which are notable organisations. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-monarchism

AfDs for this article:

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

The lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in Google Ngrams results.

Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by Peter Lamborn Wilson (see Grindon 2004; Fiscella 2009; Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see Hart 2010; Siewers 2013; Hayes 2017; Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.

Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.

As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Politics, Royalty and nobility, France, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Grnrchst's careful analysis and I don't agree with the edit summary used for recreation - "Created page, many new sources since the last deletion discussion" Mujinga (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's quite a few Google hits for the French translations of this term, from reliable sources, however there's no French Wikipedia article for it, just a Wikitionnaire entry. I don't think it meets WP:GNG and agree with Grnrchst that the mentions in the sources are passing. Orange sticker (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a similar read when first reviewing this article. It's a term used as an epithet in passing but does not cohere between reliable sources into a clear system of ideas nevertheless one that is in active consideration (sigcov) by sources. czar 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to keep working on it, yes, the closing admin can help, per WP:DRAFTIFY. If you are looking to just keep it for posterity, I recommend saving an offline copy since Wikipedia does not hold drafts indefinitely. czar 19:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordfarm

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. One of the reference is the company website and the other one seems more like a listing in Poets and Writers which is behind a paywall. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Campania

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

Unfortunately, I cannot find reliable sources per NCORP guideline. TealBass (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage to warrant an independent page. At best, it can be merged to [37] Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen metabolism tracker

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

Only routine and occasional (press-releases style) media coverage with no NCORP reliable sources. TealBass (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry. Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moath Al Qadi

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

This player has not played at the international level, nor in a fully professional league. فيصل (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Football. فيصل (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Průša

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources refer to sports results except for one, which is an interview with the person concerned. Searching the internet for "Karel Průša" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated Bedřich Slaný. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Volf (speedway rider)

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to sports results. Searching the internet for "Jaroslav Volf" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated Bedřich Slaný. FromCzech (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle AND reached the final of the Speedway individual world championship. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedřich Slaný

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

Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to passing mentions and sports results. Searching the internet for "Bedřich Slaný" shows other people with the same name. FromCzech (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Czech version cs:Bedřich Slaný of the article says (without a reference) that he died on 11 October 1980. Perhaps a news article about him or an obituary in a reliable source was published shortly after his death. Someone with access to Czechoslovak news media from 1980 might want to search for references from October 1980. The Wikipedia Library would also be worth searching. If you find one or more useful references, please add them to the Czech version cs:Bedřich Slaný as well., Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle. Pyeongchang (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. FromCzech (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I meant in general that if for Olympic sports the participation of an athlete in the Olympics is not a criterion of notability, the participation of a speedway racer in the Speedway World Cup is also not a criterion of notability. The sources you have added here and elsewhere do not demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria.

Redirect to 1962 Speedway World Team Cup may be an alternative to deletion. FromCzech (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity

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

This article, while purportedly about a court case, seems to in fact be a bio of one of the participants in the court case. Either way, neither she nor the case itself are notable.

For the case, it received some news coverage in 2023 when it was first filed and when it was dismissed, but only one story has been written about it this year, despite the fact that it went to the 10th Circuit. It was later dismissed by the 10th Circuit under procedural grounds, which was not covered at all. As the case was dismissed in both venues it appeared in, it is very unlikely it will have any relevance going forward, whether to the parties themselves or to the status of case law on transgender people as a whole.

For Artemis Langford, BLP1E applies as she is not notable for anything outside of this case. She's not even a party to the lawsuit as it currently stands. As neither the case nor Langford seem to be notable, I propose deletion. Pinguinn 🐧 03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Sexuality and gender. Pinguinn 🐧 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kappa Kappa Gamma where this is rightly already covered.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to !vote as I created the article and still believe the subject to be a notable one. I do see continued sourcing including last month as the future state of the lawsuit remains unsettled. Would prefer redirection suggested by S Marshall to outright deletion should consensus land that it isn't a notable lawsuit. Star Mississippi 13:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kappa Kappa Gamma. Current article seems to largely fit under the umbrella of the section in Kappa Kappa Gamma . I'm not sure what articles would be similar to this, the closest that I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist is probably DePauw University Delta Zeta discrimination controversy which I'm not sure this has reached the level of. As a note, this article wasn't on the WP Watchlist so I'll mention it at the Wikiproject to make sure others there see. I don't think this counts as canvassing, I fully expect one or more people there to want to keep it and/or add to the article. :) (Couldn't find any other articles on Lawsuits on membership, the closest that I found is the info in Iron Arrow about their anti-title IX lawsuit, most lawsuit mentions that I can find are part of the aftermath of a hazing incident) Naraht (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This article has adequate sources to meet notability because of its national coverage. However, because the court case didn't lead to anything significant, this content is best suited for the Controversies section of the Kappa Kappa Gamma article. There is already a subsection on this case in the Kappa Kappa Gamma article; it would be a good idea to see if any of the content from this article should be merged prior to its deletion. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment

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

Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Geo Entertainment: As the latter article is too short to justify splitting its content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Standard split from the network. Redirect and merge is possible but those who wish it should imv verify what's redirecting to the list to avoid undue deletions if double redirects are created. Having spent too much time commenting and voting on similar Afds I will not make any further comments here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out the coverage where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources?" --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity; Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan

contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or this list. or this kind of pages. Or this kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we are right back to NEWSORGINIDA. I only checked the first reference and didn't waste my time going deeper. [https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/589695-top-drama-serials-on-geo-entertainment-this-year bylined by "Instep Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I don't think there's anything rude here. Just be careful when using GUNREL sources to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.

But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable, is that not correct? ~~(on a page you yourself created!!!)~~? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page ~~you created~~(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....

But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about this page? Are you in cahoots with them? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The News itself is RS, but as @CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Still waiting for your apologies. And your point was "GUNREL", as you repeat below; so, no, it's not GUNREL, that's what I thought. QED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source dramaspice.net you cited is indeed GUNREL. Oh, why on earth should I apologize to you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.

As for why you should have apologised, I'm not the one who will explain that to you, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Not only has a history of disregarding NEWSORGINDIA in AfD's but also consistently relying on GUNREL sources to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really nasty and undue comment.....so inappropriate. Hope you will apologise.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.

And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Saqib/Mushy Yank please take the dispute elsewhere. You've weighed in sufficiently here. Please allow others to be heard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh

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

One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local organization fails WP:NORG. There's no WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are either affiliated, industry blogs (i.e. WP:TRADES) or tangentially mention the organization. Sources outside the article are principally limited to fan blogs. There's certainly no sigcov in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)" as required per WP:AUD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Film, Organizations, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Najarian

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

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]

Delete: Purely local coverage [38], [39], confirmation of election wins. Nothing beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Transportation, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 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]

Here is another one: "Najarian gets presidential welcome in Armenia" which appeared in both the Los Angeles Times and the Glendale News-Press. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can find articles that are more in-depth than mentions by searching site:latimes.com "ara najarian" on Google, such as Ara Najarian tapped as Glendale mayor for the fourth time. toweli (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toweli: I wouldn't call that "in-depth" coverage, it's a pretty short article about him becoming mayor. Seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep". toweli (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Newsbreak

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was redirected in previous AfD. Recreated with no sources, still fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Newscasts Another Filipino news brief article better served with redirection; view hasn't changed from the last nom. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Doctors Medical Center

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

Tagged as having problem in complying WP:NORG since 2017, virtually not supported by reliable, secondary sources since the article creation in 2012. A check on its version history shows it was originally meant to be an advertisement for the hospital (and was tagged with such problem once). Years passed, no significant improvements other than removing most promotional tone and adding an infobox. No improvements with regards to addition of sources that are reliable and not connected to the hospital organization (in accordance with WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:INDEPENDENT). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. No inherent notability of hospitals. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This version should have been speedied in 2012. It certainly should not have been left in this awful state with zero sources. There's nothing here to demonstrate any kind of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCall Salmon

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

Subject lacks the needed reliable coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. The sources currently in the article are either school websites or student newspapers, neither of which are independent. A check for coverage elsewhere didn't reveal anything more. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Softball, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent sources and none found online '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Baril

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

After extensive searching for WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper archives, I believe the subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. This obit [[40]] is rather short and doesn't make mention of his NFL career. Besides the obit, there are some passing/routine mentions like [[41]], [[42]], [[43]] and [[44]] but from what I see it is all trivial. While the subject played 16 NFL games, they took place in the early years of the league when the popularity of the league was nowhere near what it is today. I don't see a clear WP:ATD here but am open to the possibility. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]