User:Ijey6458/2 days ago

• use Template:NOINDEX

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7

Guide to deletion

Heather Cooper

Heather Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Prod was removed by an editor who added sources. However, almost all the sources are primary. E.g. from Handball Australia. The ABC source is third party but it's not WP:SIGCOV. Winning the Oceania Cup isn't much of an achievement given the weakness of competition. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Handball, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Tor Valum

Tor Valum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here: https://unpublished-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Canderous Ordo

Canderous Ordo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Security Compass

Security Compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Specifically lacking reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Canada. Brandon (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Freedom of Nations!

For the Freedom of Nations! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The European Council on Foreign Relations citation seems perfectly admissible for GNG in particular. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete as it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Plenty of one-time conferences have gained sustained notability (e.g., the Bandung Conference), but this article does not qualify. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Its sources almost entirely fail the crucial point of "Independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. See WP:TASS for example. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep - I think this event is sufficiently notable. It may be a little early to judge ref WP:SUSTAINED but, @Amigao it’s import to pay due regard to WP:NTEMP. I agree with @Thena and @Orchastrattor that the references are poor and fall short of the standard described by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I’ve done some cursory research and there are some western perspectives available that could compliment the pro-Russian sources currently in the article. (NB - Orchastrattor is being generous when they say. ‘May have’)

TLDR/ Improve references. Too narrow. Adamfamousman (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's too early to judge WP:SUSTAINED then it's WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist. - Amigao (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:GNG, and I believe it is notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 22:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

List of things claimed to possess 365 of something

List of things claimed to possess 365 of something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely fails WP:NLIST. Lordseriouspig 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lordseriouspig 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Userfy. Article creator Ridiculopathy is still a relatively new editor who has made good contributions and didn't fully understand the rules around WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. We discussed this on my Talk page (since archived). I would send it back to user space to give the editor a chance to salvage the sections worth saving for another article (and most likely rename a subset of the draft or just get it deleted it when they're done). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Cielquiparle, I've taken the necessary sources off it and am satisfied to let it be deleted now it needs be. I'd self delete it myself but am away from my laptop at present. Thanks Ridiculopathy (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Ridiculopathy Technically you can't delete an article unless you're an admin, but you can request deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, Ridiculopathy (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Not opposed to userfying, but I'm skeptical there are enough sources which treat these as a group. It doesn't appear there are any in the article itself yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Userfy per Cielquiparle. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Fort Campbell Children's Theatre

Fort Campbell Children's Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage, and none is in the article. A prod was removed in 2013. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent significant coverage, no notable people involved, no notable productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a wall of WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews. Not finding any non-trivial coverage in WP:SIRS to meet WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

List of German scientists

List of German scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science, Lists, and Germany. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Too vague, just a list of links to Wikipedia articles about people with German names. Holger Ziegler is a good example, American born, but with a German name. Some of his career involves German, some not. — Maile (talk) — Maile (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Pratip Munshi

Pratip Munshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotionally toned article on a non-notable mother-of-pearl artist. It seems to be part of a possible walled garden on various family members of the Mushi/Munsi family. No indication from the current sourcing nor in a BEFORE search that this artist passes GNG nor meets the criteria for NARTIST. All I found online were WP mirrors. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, India, and West Bengal. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• DELETE Not notable enough at all for Wikipedia standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST. All I can find online are trivial mentions in blogs and mirrors of this article, so they also fail WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 23:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Page reads as WP:PROMO. I do not find any source on the subject notable for originating any significant new concept, or created well-known work. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Syhunt

Syhunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacks any reliable sources. Fails every criteria of WP:ORGCRIT. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Brazil. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Literally nothing about them online except for their own websites. Very obvious WP:NORG fail - might even qualify for A7. Was most likely a WP:UPE creation, surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Their own website, then linkedin, then directory listings... No coverage in Gnews or anywhere else for this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

2009 Vitonen – Finnish League Division 5

2009 Vitonen – Finnish League Division 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS, because very few care about - and cover - the sixth thier of football in a country of 6 million where ice hockey is the national sport. At one stage we stop to provide tables for amateur sport, and Vitonen is firmly below that threshold. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There are loads of non-league seasons, I am slightly confused by this single nomination. Nostats for season pages of leagues is not a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• One reason is that I will never make a bundled nomination, since they have largely fallen out of favour. Another reason is that this page is new and it's a crossroads to stop more Vitonen pages from appearing. As such, there are not loads of pages about sixth-tier leagues in small countries. Yes, NOTSTATS is a reason for deletion because it's a part of the policy WP:NOT. Leagues should be covered only when they get significant attention. Geschichte (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Geschichte: New? The article was created 25 January 2010‎! Finland a small country? I don't think so, you failed to mention general notability issues. Really, this is a very poor nomination from my perspective. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Mustafa Kardeen

Mustafa Kardeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Had a brief career and seems to lack WP:SIGCOV. I found Al-Sharq, but it's just a brief transfer announcement with a quote from the player. Other than that, I could only find Lusail News, Raya and Al-Kass, all of which were just passing mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Co-Counselling International

Co-Counselling International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested blank-and-redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International. Insufficient secondary coverage of this organization, and article is promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Co-counselling#Co-Counselling International: though even that section needs a lot of work and potentially shouldn't exist at all. No WP:SIGCOV of the organization. No point in merging anything because the content missing from co-counselling is all promotional junk. The BLAR was contested by John Talbut, an employee of the organization — if you're going to continue editing these articles, please disclose your COI on the talk page of the article to avoid confusion. C F A 💬 20:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've removed most of the blatant unsourced promo from the main article's section. C F A 💬 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    And I found and added a Guardian article that covers a lot about this organization's origins. Anyone should feel free to mine it for more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  CCI is a peer network that I have been active in for many years. It does not have employees. People who teach co-counselling, of which I am one, may be paid, usually by participants or in some cases by outside organisations such as schools or colleges. John Talbut (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  You literally have "Formerly UK Contact Person for Co-Counselling International (CCI)" listed on your profile. Regardless, this is still a conflict of interest that has to be appropriately disclosed. C F A 💬 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  As the link shows, I am not anonymous and my biography is publicly available.John Talbut (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I had to get to the categories before I found out this article is about counseling as in mental health and not counseling as in lawyers. EDIT: Fixed and sourced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is simply descriptive of Co-Counselling International as it is. There is plenty of secondary cover available, as can be seen here: https://www.co-counselling.info/en/biblio John Talbut (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I could not find a single paper on the website you linked that was secondary. They were all written by Co-counselling International. Some of them, in fact, were written by you. This is not secondary coverage at all. C F A 💬 03:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to do? Co-Counselling International is an active international network as is evident from following the web links referenced. You seem to be trying to delete most references to it. Do you have a COI? Co-Counselling International does not write anything, all contributions are made by and are the responsibility of individuals. Naturally a lot of the references are internal because they are about the network. If you think the article needs improvement please suggest how. John Talbut (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a COI. I had never seen this article before it was listed at AfD. Being an "active international network" means nothing when it comes to notability. Please read the notability guidelines for organizations:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

There is not significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources — which means it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The references you listed above are all not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If you have any policy-based evidence that the organization is notable (WP:NORG), now would be a good time to share it. C F A 💬 16:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Objection to AfD secondary references independent of subject https://www.academia.edu/33733482/My_Early_Engagement_with_Humanistic_Psychology

Also

https://www.martinwilks.com/research/1.1Co-counselling.htm

which is best accessed from http://www.martinwilks.com/my-research/ Pbgvbiker (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Source one is written by John Heron, the founder (?) of Co-Counselling International: the exact opposite of independent. Neither is the page you listed — the author is involved with the organization. Not sure about its reliability either way. On another note, it's interesting how this account has only ever made one edit: the reply above to this seemingly-random AfD.  Looks like a duck to me. C F A 💬 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was procedural close‎. The article was draftified by its creator, 1NewSwiki, so it is no longer eligible for AfD. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 21:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Dainik Rudrabangla

Dainik Rudrabangla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All accessible sources are either primary sources or passing mentions (to the extent I can understand them, through gtrans). Fermiboson (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Companies, and Bangladesh. Fermiboson (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Dear Santa (upcoming film)

Dear Santa (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM as release date not announced. Existing sources are nowhere than procedural announcements only. WP:DRAFTIFY should be the better option. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: has been accepted through AfC. Filming has started. Even if this is never released, cast and director are extremely notable and most of all, coverage presented in the page or existing online is sufficient to satisfy the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films says:

  Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. ...

  Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

  The sources verify that the film commenced principal photography in March 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. The production is notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

  Sources

  1. Ho, Rodney (2023-03-16). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers reunite for 'Dear Santa' comedy shooting in metro Atlanta". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Jack Black is back in metro Atlanta to shoot the Farrelly Brothers Christmas-themed comedy “Dear Santa.” ... Black was seen in downtown Decatur last week shooting the film and he posted an Instagram photo from the set teasing the movie’s thematics in what appeared to be a Christmas village. ... Others in the cast include Robert Timothy Smith, Keegan-Michael Key, Brianne Howey, Hayes MacArthur, PJ Byrne, Jaden Carson Baker, Kai Cech and Austin Post."

  2. Kroll, Justin (2023-03-15). "Jack Black & The Farrelly Brothers Reunite For Christmas Comedy 'Dear Santa' At Paramount". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "The movie centers on a young boy who, in writing his yearly note to Santa, mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Black recently teased the project on social media when he posted a photo of him posing with Christmas decorations with no context — it got everyone talking about what it could be."

  3. Couch, Aaron (2023-03-15). "Jack Black, Farrelly Brothers Team for Paramount's 'Dear Santa'". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     Thea article notes: "After more than 20 years, Jack Black is reteaming with his Shallow Hal filmmakers the Farrelly Brothers for the Paramount comedy Dear Santa. The feature centers on a child who intends to write a letter to Santa Claus, but mixes up the letters and sends it to Satan instead. Bobby Farrelly will direct and produce, with brother Peter Farrelly producing along with Jeremy Kramer. The Farrelly brothers penned the script with Ricky Blitt, the writer behind the 2005 Johnny Knoxville feature The Ringer. The story came from an original idea from Dan Ewen, known for the John Cena comedy Playing With Fire."

  4. Bedard, Mike (2024-06-03). "Jack Black Is Unrecognizable As Satan For A New Christmas Movie". Looper. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Following his previous Christmas movie, 2006's "The Holiday" — where he was half of one of the most memorable holiday movie couples ever as Miles — Jack Black is dipping back into the Christmas spirit with a decidedly different project and character. Now fans can see him become unrecognizable as Satan on the set of the upcoming flick, "Dear Santa.""

  5. Hedash, Kara (2024-04-03). "Post Malone's Next Movie Is More Promising After Road House's $85 Million Success". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

     The article notes: "Next up, Post Malone will star in the upcoming Christmas comedy Dear Santa alongside Jack Black and Keegan-Michael Key. It's unclear who Post Malone will be playing in Dear Santa, but the movie's premise will undoubtedly catch attention, considering it follows a young kid who accidentally writes a letter to Satan (Black) instead of Santa ahead of the Christmas holiday. The movie also reunites Black with the Farrelly Brothers, who collaborated together on 2001's Shallow Hal. Dear Santa will be another chance for Post Malone to showcase his comedic chops while also trying his hand at a Christmas movie for the first time in his acting career."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dear Santa to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: both keep votes appear to have missed the films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines part of NFILM. Is the production itself notable? I don't see any evidence that there is, which would make this an improper AfC acceptance and lead to redraftification until we have a release date. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  ??? I don't think Cunard nor myself have missed that part, no. Cunard even quoted it VERBATIM in his !vote. Rather, maybe you missed the part in our !votes when we found it is notable, explained why and/or the evidence presented by Cunard above, present in the page or existing online Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cunard quoted it verbatim, yes, but his sources don't address it at all? All of these quotes he's pulled are basically "this movie is coming up! it's started shooting! here are some guys who are in it!" That's not the production of the movie being notable. That's simply people saying that the movie is currently being produced. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It might have enoough to pass GNG, but it's simply a news story at this point. Might never get released. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC

• Draft until it's a bit further in the production cycle. TO9SOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The production itself meets WP:GNG. See above sources by Cunard. C F A 💬 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003)

Joe Phillips (English cricketer, born 2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject person played only 1 List-A and 2 First class match. Does WP:GNG surpasses WP:NCRICK? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990: - can I just point out NSPORT states that "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline...) - so all NSPORT is saying that people who meet those criteria are considered notable, but not meeting those criteria doesn't automatically make them non-notable. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - meets GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Doesn't appear on the cricket delsort - tryingto add that again first Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• At worst this is an obvious redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players where his name needs to be added. A note should also be added, as has been done for others. Beyond that I have no particular view here - there are some sources, but not so many. I suspect he is likely to be covered in others as well fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. He does not meet GNG - this is the one qualifying source. Gloscricket is obviously not independent coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the delsort issues, more eyes won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, but he may be notable in the future, i.e. WP:NOTNOW. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @SWinxy, in this case, wouldn't a redirect be more appropriate? That way, if he becomes notable in the future, someone won't have to start the article from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, borderline decision but given the rhythms and vagaries of the English county cricket season we are approaching the part where younger players are used to a greater extent, precisely the time this page will be useful to people who follow the game to refer to. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Gazetted officer (India)

Gazetted officer (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per all sources available through here.--Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: There are gazetted officers for the United Kingdom as well, but I haven't come across any articles on them. It is a content fork of The Gazette of India, where it can be mentioned, and does not justify WP:SIZESPLIT. Other than a dictionary definition, there's no other content encyclopedic to be added. The so-called reliable references are either passing mentions or run-of-the-mill news reports about a single news (eg: JCO). No other "independent sources". The subject definitely lacks WP:SIGCOV, depth of coverage, and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--2409:4073:314:4414:2885:8BF:F6E1:1901 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  But there are specific pages on Gazetted officer of Kenya and Sri Lanka. There are many reliable references in this article as well.!! TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a regulatory requirement for promotion, likely too limited in scope for coverage here. I don't see the need for this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Bhimadeva

Bhimadeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @Utcursch: with edit summary (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

U.S. carrier strike group tactics

U.S. carrier strike group tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There's a claim on the talk page that the article is based on a computer game guide that preceeds the history of the page, hence there is a potential copyright infringement. I can't access the source, but perhaps others will be better able to assess the claim. I note other unresolved maintainence issues. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Sources used are for submarines... Being sourced to a game manual isn't quite what were looking for. This is amply discussed in other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Army Public School, Jodhpur

Army Public School, Jodhpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a relatively small secondary school with, as far as I can find, no obvious claim to notability. Others may be able to provide evidence of notability (and create links from other pages to deorphan this page). Newhaven lad (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, Schools, and Rajasthan. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasmeen Tahir

Yasmeen Tahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable actor, possible mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: has received the Sitara-i-Imtiaz, which can be considered a "well-known and significant award or honour", so that she meets WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  And as for the rest of the sourcing? Being notable is not enough here; BLP applies as well. A look for sources isn't turning up much for me (strings: ["yasmin tahir" pakistan], ["yasmeen tahir" pakistan]). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Being notable is enough for being notable imv.:D-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  But that is not the case, is it? Again, I'm leaving it at that and will stand by my Keep. Thank you for your time, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  If we're allowing BLPs based on such awards, I suppose many WP:ROTM personalities could manage to get a stand-alone BLP then. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However, Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor BeauSuzanne‎, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Final comment, though: interesting diff when one knows this is 1) a standard section of ALL articles where they can bee added 2) sourced 3) a major claim at notability :D...-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Mushy Yank, ...the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, But your continued participation here, here and even here contradict your earlier statement of disengagement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    No, they don't, not that it matters. Read me with more attention; but thank you for this comment all the same. I'm gone, though, this time, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

@BeauSuzanne: Longevity does not matter for notability. What matters is the available sources discussing the subject, and frankly outside of the award there aren't any. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete winning a minor civilian honor as discussed above is not really enough for notability from WP:ANYBIO without other references. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  S0091, We've doubts about the credibility of such awards; they seem to be given based on personal connections. The same year, this award was also given to someone merely for performing their job, without any significant achievement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Saqib, will you please provide evidence of your claim that Sitara-i-Imtiaz is paid? The source you attached never supported such claims. Will you care to prove that Yasmeen Tahir got this award due to a personal connection? 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  IP - I'm simply pointing out that the credibility of this award isn't strong, so it's not inappropriate to classify it as a minor civilian award. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Saqib Do you have any proof that these awards credibility is not strong or they are minor? Please provide evidence that support your claims. 2404:3100:144D:4E4:1:0:A80F:2CCB (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've stated my position and while I don't need to provide evidence for everything I say, but, if you insist, you can refer to this, this and this, which says In the past, numerous Pakistani TV, film, music and literature personalities have been given these awards, while others struggled to even get nominated. Many complained of the lack of a stringent criterion and claimed favouritism as well.. If you don't want to trust me, that's your choice. However, you should consider trusting these sources and the former senior cabinet minister who have made the same statements as mine, about these civil awards. I prefer not to engage with WP:LOUTSOCK, so I won't argue further. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not a single source claims that Yasmeen Tahir got an award due to personal connections or that she was not awarded as per merit neither they mentioned Sitara-i-Imtiaz is fake/minor. You are throwing fictious sources that does'nt support your claims. 2404:3100:1402:FFDF:1:0:9155:36D0 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Right and most awards are criticized for overlooking others who are arguably more deserving, the political nature of them, etc. See Nobel Prize controversies and this NYT article about the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US. Either way, Sitara-i-Imtiaz is one the highest awards and it is not given out like candy with hundreds of recipients each year like some. S0091 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  S0091, Allow me to clarify my remarks. I do not deny that it is one of the highest civilian awards in the country. Perhaps my wording was incorrect. What I intended to say is that it is referred to as minor in the sense that it lacks credibility and I provided sources to support my claims, and the more I research it, the more I find opinions aligning with mine. [Granting civil awards to minions, crooks and fraudsters has eroded the prestige and value of these awards.] That said, it's still an honor to receive such an award, even if its credibility has diminished. However, basing a BLP solely on this award doesn't make sense to me at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well I think we can all agree Yasmeen Tahir is not one those crooks or fraudsters. :) That opinion piece is about civil awards in general, of which there are several, with specific focus on higher education and one example regarding the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. Also clearly he agrees the award has prestige and value; otherwise it couldn't be eroded. As I state above I am not saying the award in and of itself establishes notability; only that is not a minor award. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Recipent of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, third-highest honour and civilian award in the State of Pakistan. 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  The issue is that's the only thing there exists sources for. Nobody's been able to find any usable sources for literally anything else, making an article on her fairly questionable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sitara-i-Imtiaz#Recipients of Sitara-e-Imtiaz: I have tried to find at least a couple secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage about her but everything is brief mentions. Within those mentions it is clear to me she has had an impact but it's not enough to establish notability. However, sources could come to light in the future so I at least want to maintain the work that has been done which a redirect will accomplish. I do think the title should changed to Yasmin Tahir, though. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Most of the sources exist in the keyphrase "یاسمین طاہر". The initial concerns about sourcing have been significantly fixed now. Many of the latest sources added are not mere passing mentions and multiple sources verify particular claims. Everything in the article is sourced and the concerns about OR and UPE have been fixed as I have contributed to almost 55.5% of the article's content, completely rewriting it forward and none were referred from the 4 July version of this article.

There is much more information available now beyond wedding photos and content related to Naeem Tahir which were also one of the previous concerns. This article cannot be redirected or merged to a suitable target, i.e Naeem Tahir, Imtiaz Ali Taj or Sitara-i-Imtiaz as it has extensive coverage from her early life till now, which will be lost or cannot be fit into another article without disparaging it. With the current level of sourcing, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO#1.

Per Sitara-i-Imtiaz - It recognizes individuals who have made an "especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of Pakistan, world peace, cultural or other significant public endeavours". I believe her continued contributions from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 until now is what made her eligible for Sitara-i-Imtiaz. The amount of coverage she has now is surprising for someone who is notable for her work during and after the war, when the internet did not exist. This article should be kept as a significant amount of coverage exists in offline books, local newspapers and other magazines popular during that time. Adding that to what we have online will easily make her notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Jeraxmoira. How easy/possible would it be for a given person to find offline sources about her, assuming they'll mainly be in Pakistan? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yordan Penev

Yordan Penev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Penev had a very brief professional career, playing only one top level match, and I am unable to find sources that comply with WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Varnautre and Varna 24 but these are only simple match report mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, strog failure of GNG. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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 Withdrawn‎. Valid reason from article creator. Any other editor is free to nominate article if they feel the subject is not suitable according to Wikipedia notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Gabriel (talk to me ) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Plug

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Plug
• Articles for deletion/The Plug-In Drug
• Articles for deletion/The Plug (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/The Plug Records

The Plug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see how this company meets Notability. All sources are just talking about how they sign public figures into their management. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plug Sports. The same creator also uploaded the logo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Plug_logo.png took it from the company website which the reference is also shown on the wikipedia logo link. All this just for WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI and WP:PAY. Creator of article needs to be undergoing WP:AFCREVIEW for crosschecking against WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI and WP:PAY.. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, News media, Companies, Management, Sports, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Further comment : Editors should also note that The Plug-In Drug has no relation to do with the said subject The Plug which is nominated for an Afd. Its first AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plug which was speedy delete due to Promotional content.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject meets notability, and its written in NPOV. In addition, the first ADF was in 2014 and was about "The Plug" a song from The Beauty of Independence album by G-Unit. The company was established in 2016 and has no connection with The Plug Records ADF.--Afí-afeti (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Croatian Association of the Blind

Croatian Association of the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any reference to this except for the organisation's own website and Facebook / Twitter posts and some accounts of meetings of the organisation (for example the annual training event at https://vijesti.hrt.hr/hrvatska/hrvatski-savez-slijepih-11611855). There may of course be other references that I haven't found that would demonstrate notability (and might, incidentally, also enable the page to be deorphaned). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Did you search in Croatian? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the references found by SportingFlyer Here's another reference from the corresponding article in Croatian: https://web.archive.org/web/20181018161946/http://www.savez-slijepih.hr/hr/kategorija/o-savezu-2/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources from SportingFlyer contain multiple paragraphs of independent coverage which suitably allows this subject to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to accept the consensus. However, I have checked all the sources found by SportingFlyer (and had found several of them before I suggested deletion). With one exception, they all contain very similar material that appears to have been provided to news outlets by the organisation itself about one of its events. The exception is material about a cultural organisation that is happy to take over space previously used by the Association. The source found by Eastmain appears to be a link to the Association website. None of this material appears to me to provide independent commentary about the organisation or its notability. (The presence of a couple of politicians at the event is not, I think, sufficiently remarkable). But happy to go with the consensus if others disagree with me. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's not all of the articles, though - a very cursory search on Jutarnji shows four pages of search results dating back to at least 2006. There's plenty of information out there. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Fitim Reçi

Fitim Reçi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reçi debuted at a very young age but has now been inactive for over six years and I'm struggling to find any non-database sources on him. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC based on my Albanian source searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, utter GNG failure. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete—Nothing here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yaki Kadafi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yaki Kadafi
• Articles for deletion/Yaki Kadafi (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Yaki Kadafi (3rd nomination)

Yaki Kadafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Multiple times contested WP:BLAR; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from this musician's main group, Outlawz. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and New York. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Twice I've redirected the article to Outlawz only to have it reverted by an SPA. Anyway, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines as a solo artist while he (and the group) is only known for his association with 2Pac, and I don't see him getting any more notable as his career was so short and he is long deceased. Since this is its third trip to AfD, perhaps a salting is also in order. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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 Withdrawn‎‎. Valid reason from article creator. Any other editor is free to nominate article if they feel the subject is not suitable according to Wikipedia notability guideline. (non-admin closure) Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Plug Sports

Plug Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This looks like a WP:PROMOTION to me, Wikipedia Conflict of interest and WP:PAY. It all traced down from the creator who created the article Asa Asika, then created for his company The Plug and now creating branches for the company such as Plug Sports all from one editor who never went through WP:AFCREVIEW. I won't be surprise to see more branches coming up from either the same creator or suck puppet account. The creator also uploaded the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plug_Sports.jpg gotten from the company instagram page. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Entertainment, Companies, Sports, and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: It is not mandatory to go through WP:AFCREVIEW. In addition, as an Extended confirmed user I can create articles without submitting them. For clarification, I have no COI with the company or its co-owners, and according to billboard, they are pioneers of Afrobeats. So why not? 🤷‍♂️.--Afí-afeti (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Kumkum Munsi

Kumkum Munsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and India. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Borderline G11, would not object to draftification for an unconnected editor to attempt an article about Munsi's contributions to the Academy, but that alone isn't grounds for notability and I do not see sourcing to pass N:ARTIST although I acknowledge age of his life is in issue there. Star Mississippi 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I have searched a bit on Google Book Search and found nothing to pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually there are several books which have mentioned his name multiple times. Noted painters like Jogen Chowdhury remembered him in his sayings that is well documented in this link: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Jogen_Chowdhury/e_zpAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=Kumkum%20Munshi and https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/ADDA/tSdBEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kumkum+Munshi&pg=PT81&printsec=frontcover. Not only that, painter Amitabh SenGupta has also remembered Kumkum Munsi in his book Memoir of an Artist (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/MEMOIR_OF_AN_ARTIST/teLtAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kumkum+Munshi&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover). Even there are some books I found in the Google Books that have their covers designed by Munsi (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Contemporary_Bengali_Literature/vlsch77pobsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Kumkum+Munshi&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover and https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Cokhera_b%C4%81ire/-jw0AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE+%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%80&dq=%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE+%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%80&printsec=frontcover). Also in 1970, the news of Munsi's exhibition in Maxmuller Bhavan in Kolkata was covered in this Bengali article: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/De%C5%9Ba/d-EcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%80 . Finesilpo (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also in 1965, another document covers the news of exhibition by Munsi along with other painters. Although these links are available online, there were two books published offline in which Munsi was commemorated which also supports the notability of the subject. Also, in those books it was mentioned that after Munsi's death the Tata Group commemorated Munsi with all his paintings published in their calender.For an artist, is it not a notability when he gets remembered by internationally renowned conglomerate like Tata Group? Finesilpo (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Name mentions or acknowledgements or image/photo credits are not significant coverage which is what is needed for GNG. Furthermore, the majority of these links are unverifiable. A corporation like Tata Group using his images in a calendar is also not significant coverage nor does it contribute to notability. Sorry to disappoint, but he fails NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Audrey A. McNiff

Audrey A. McNiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

this person does not seem very notable, just a retired executive. one of the only recent pieces of information that comes up when I search her name is this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/07/abortion-rights-supporters-wont-get-their-amendment-passed-without-republican-women-like-audrey-mcniff-00165157 CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CGP05 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I find no coverage of this person, what's used in the article is trivial coverage. There seems to be nothing online about her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Just another department head, seemingly. Fails the GNG, and meets no other notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Very Important People (2023 TV series)

Very Important People (2023 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find it passes WP:GNG. Literary no review at all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and United States of America. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Sourcing from the CBC is an interview with the host, but talks about the show. The Variety article shows this is up for an Emmy award and briefly talks about the show, also showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Week Keep? So you aren't sure for Keep? All interview is primary, not mounting to WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Interviee is with the person, but it supports an article about the tv show. The Emmy nomination makes it notable rrgardless.Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Slight correction: The show has only been submitted for Emmy consideration; the official nominations won't be out until next week. That's why I didn't mention it anywhere in the article yet. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can wait until next week I suppose to see if it makes the final list for the award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Article creator here. Honestly didn't expect it to get to get promoted out of the draft space; I wasn't sure if it had enough, so I submitted it to get insight on areas for improvement, maybe see if coverage increases substantially should that Emmy nod go through. I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be kept since I'm obviously a little biased (though I will say starting a delete discussion minutes after someone accepts the draft doesn't seem kosher), but if it does get the axe, I'd prefer it get moved back to the draft space so I can continue source-hunting and working on improving it. Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Coverage cited shows it meets the requirement for GNG. I cannot understand the nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify: The show doesn't currently (article or elsewhere) have significant reliable independent coverage sufficient to meet GNG:

1. The CBC interview would be non-independent by default but some of it has additional significant independent qualitative coverage. (Y)
2. The Variety article only has passing coverage N
3. The Deadline interview is non-independent N
4. The Observer is a student newspaper and I believe while independent/reliable should have low weight (xref WP:UNIGUIDE) (Y)
5. The Polygon article is non-independent N
6. The Webby's award is a public web-vote and not the expert-voted Webby award, and is thus insufficient/unreliable for consideration of acclaim/impact. Even if it were the expert-voted Webby award I think it would be low weight given how many Webby awards there are (see the popup menus from the category sidebar at https://winners.webbyawards.com/winners) N

That said, I think it has a reasonable chance of an Emmy nomination given that its category is such an oddball one and there will be 5 nominees from only 22 on the longlist even before considerations of the 24000 eligible voter pool potentially skewing slightly in favour of Dropout, and Dropout fans really liking Dropout shows. If it is, then between the nomination and the second season and the awards we may actually get sufficient independent qualitative coverage, but unfortunately it's not there yet for me.

(BTW, for anyone unfamiliar with the show, youtube has the first episode - enjoy)

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Government Girls General Degree College, Ekbalpur

Government Girls General Degree College, Ekbalpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since 2017. Can't find sourcing that can pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ragib Shahriar Ankon

Ragib Shahriar Ankon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Product of BLP1E. dxneo (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. dxneo (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think there are significant coverages for this article of Ragib Shahriar Ankon (in Bangla, রাগীব শাহরিয়ার অংকন). Kindly review it again and remove the Article for deletion notice! Iamsthnahiyan (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Such Guinness World Records holders are ousted by others. If not ousted for decades, then we can have WP:SIGCOV. Seems BLP1E with WP:TOOSOON with no WP:GNG Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think there are significant coverages for this article of Ragib Shahriar Ankon (in Bangla, রাগীব শাহরিয়ার অংকন). Kindly review it again and remove the Article for deletion notice! Iamsthnahiyan (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, concurring with Twinkle1990. GWRs are able to be gamed with money, so it's an unreliable metric of achievement. SWinxy (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hoze Houndz

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hoze Houndz
• Articles for deletion/Hoze Houndz (2nd nomination)

Hoze Houndz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel#Animated_series_7 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

QI News

QI News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since 2007. Literary found nothing that passes WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Organizations, Internet, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find a single source (let alone a reliable one) mentioning this subject, so it definitely fails WP:GNG. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Variety Magazine mentioned it being in development once, in-passing [7]; that isn't substantial coverage. I doubt there is substantial coverage. Unsure about a redirect to QI; ComedyBox is a redlink. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to QI#Other_media -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Legend of Zeta & Ozz

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zeta & Ozz
• Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zeta & Ozz (2nd nomination)

The Legend of Zeta & Ozz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to be notable or pass WP:GNG. Not convinced the current citations are enough.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, with the "keep" votes talk about it being the first Chilean show on Cartoon Network, but not providing any sources to either back that up, or cite that it was signifigant enough to pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Chile. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: https://cinergiaonline.com/cartoon-network-anuncia-su-nuevo-show-la-leyenda-de-zeta-ozz/ ; https://www.newslinereport.com/plataformas/nota/cartoon-network-desarrolla-la-leyenda-de-zeta--ozz-con-talento-chileno-2 ; https://www.emol.com/noticias/Espectaculos/2019/02/16/938055/La-Leyenda-de-Zeta--Ozz-la-nueva-apuesta-internacional-de-Cartoon-Network-coproducida-con-estudios-chilenos.html ; https://www.totalmedios.com/nota/37633/cartoon-network-estreno-la-leyenda-de-zeta-ozz ; https://www.elmostrador.cl/cultura/2015/06/22/la-leyenda-de-zeta-y-ozz-serie-de-animacion-chilena-gana-premio-de-disney-en-festival-frances/ and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Did you try making a WP:BEFORE or at least checking the article's talk page? Bedivere (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: With Mushy Yank's additions, there appears to be enough attention in the Chilean press to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• WITHDRAWN, citations identified are enough for notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Lucky (Indian TV series)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lucky (Indian TV series)
• Articles for deletion/Lucky (Indian TV series) (2nd nomination)

Lucky (Indian TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013.

Previous AfD had no participants, so closed as no consensus. Let's figure this one out! DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_StarPlus#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

List of educational organisations in Perumbavoor

List of educational organisations in Perumbavoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. Can be alternatively merged to Perumbavoor#Education The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect to Perumbavoor#Educational_organisations. No sources on the page and the list of educational organizations fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. Wikipedia is not a directory. RangersRus (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Educational institutions in Ernakulam district. Only three things on this list have a link to their own Wikipedia articles, so not enough for its own list article. Dream Focus 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Perumbavoor. There are already some listed here. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Jana Labáthová

Jana Labáthová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Alphonse Joseph

Alphonse Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Neither of the two entries is a compound given name. Alphonse Joseph Georges has an article in the French wikipedia titled Alphonse Georges and a New York Times article about him also calls him Alphonse Georges. As for Alphonse Joseph Glorieux, his French wikipedia article is titled Alphonse Glorieux, a newspaper article refer to him the same way,[8] and his English article says "Alphonse Glorieux was born on ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, overzealous creation of namecruft. People who type in Alphonse Joseph in the search box will have both names come up there. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; these are partial-title matches that shouldn't be on a DAB page. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. Not much justification for this page existing; Alphonse Joseph is for one a random given/middle name combination, not a given name as the article incorrectly states. Because of the unlikelihood of someone to be referred to by their first and middle names, such indexes are not typically created on Wikipedia, and we can see that they are indeed not referred to as "Alphonse Joseph" per the sources that nom gives. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Heng

Donald Heng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:PROD, there has been two WP:BLAR and reverts, now I'm bringing it to AfD to gather consensus. The actor only had minor roles in multiple works, plus a slightly more significant role in Girl vs. Monster. Does not fulfill WP:NACTOR, I suggest a Redirect to Girl vs. Monster#Cast Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cambodia, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

TalentEgg

TalentEgg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated for speedy deletion in September 2021. Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Internet, and Canada. Orange sticker (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article creator has a conflict of interest (declared in their page) for being paid by Fikra (ref 1 in the article), and this person, Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, is the CEO of the organisation. Going back to WP:NPOL, this person was the assistant chief staff to Sudan's PM, which does not meet the notability requirement for inclusion . Examining WP:SIGCOV, the sources in the article are mostly not about him. It is mostly about the program that he claims to be part of, for example, Ref(5) is about the project - Nafeer Campaign - itself, same for 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, etc. Also few refs are self-published, like ref 16 and 17. The "Political approach and views" section is purely original research, and I have tagged multiple instances of weasel wording and failed verification. Final thing, when looking for articles about this person in Arabic just to confirm coverage, I found negative coverage that is not included in the article (probably due to the author COI). For example, Fareid was convicted of domestic abuse, see 1, 2, 3 and 4. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sudan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Orsett Heath Academy

Orsett Heath Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school, which opened in 2020,and cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources which is not run of the mill. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for the school to be notable. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe merge to Orsett Heath or Grays, Essex (as its not actually in Orsett Heath). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron

77 Armoured Engineer Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. No references are provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality
• Articles for deletion/Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (2nd nomination)

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Andries Mahoney

Andries Mahoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Northern Marianas Open

2024 Northern Marianas Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Yet another low level bwf tournament with little to no coverage in the news. Similar to the previous afd of 2024 Austrian open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: the winners are mentioned in the parent article Northern Marianas Open. zoglophie^•talk• 06:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Devon Martinus

Devon Martinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Association of Palestine

Islamic Association of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
• [13] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  First article seems fine.

  Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

  Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

  6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

  matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

  i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

  I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

  A review of his work on NYTimes

  "Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

  Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
• TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

  There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohsin Khan (producer)

Mohsin Khan (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCER. The majority of sources cited in the article are sponsored content. I can't find any independent reliable sources about this producer yet.

The page was moved from the draft to the main space without any improvements, and the templates were removed without resolving the issues by the author. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

World Elephant

World Elephant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hindu cosmology. The article appears to be repeating itself a number of times. CharlesWain (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or merge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.

Cortador (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or redirect, possibly to World Turtle#India. The article does need substantial improvement, but not total deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

Prime ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Alex (Supergirl)

Alex (Supergirl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[14] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.

JoeJShmo^💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindi Hai Hum

Hindi Hai Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, doesn't have any reference source. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama: where it's listed, and add a source (https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/2009/Feb/26/real-tv-channel-to-go-on-air-from-march-2-28746.html or a more detailed one, like https://nettv4u.com/about/hindi/tv-serials/hindi-hai-hum) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and no sources with indepth coverage. I would not even consider to redirect the page to Real_(TV_channel)#Drama because this page too fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP with no significant coverage that was up for only one year from 2009 to 2010. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

Second Battle of Robotyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Calabar Chic

Calabar Chic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

• Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: sourcing is fine, [15] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. C F A 💬 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• As with the other AfD - what's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• What's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Editors are free to move this redirect. You might ask a page mover to do so unless you want a double redirect from Bucal, they can suppress a redirect for the redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Bucal

Bucal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Generally unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source (2019 archived copy) does not back up the statement on the etymology of the barangay toponym. Much of the article is a directory of their establishments and landmarks: a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Bucal, Calamba (to distinguish it from other barangays named Bucal, such as those in Sariaya, Tanza, Magdalena, and Amadeo) and then redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Liz: I'm fine with your proposal. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• @HueMan1 and JWilz12345: are you fine with Liz's proposal? --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. HueMan1 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Halang, Calamba

Halang, Calamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source being used (Nov. 2018 archived copy) does not back up the claim of the barangay being "one of the richest barangays in the city". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I might be wrong, but there are some teeny tiny Sources in Google Books, A 7,000 population barangay seems "notable enough" to me. I also see a dead source in BPI probably stating about Halang, like I said, I might be wrong.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Spicy Chile

Spicy Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM; no WP:SIGCOV beyond the bibliography reference and the mere mention at IMDb. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Added a few things rapidly. Seems notable enough to me. Absolutely opposed to deletion as a redirect to the director is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article to build the reception section that together shows a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Princesa Lea

Princesa Lea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Goodboy Galaxy

Goodboy Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//

According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend presenting the WP:THREE best examples of significant coverage and letting people react to those. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [16], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  And the dev info brought to us through Nintendo Life? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The interview? That's a primary source, doesn't count towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  You think Nintendo Life was directed/paid by the game developers to publish that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Interviews are primary source unless there's some significant secondary analysis by the interviewer. Only secondary sources can establish notability. See WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. --Mika1h (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, the IGN, Eurogamer, and Time Extension sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG.We have multiple reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The WPVG custom search engine yields additional coverage from Hardcore Gamer and 4gamer. Critical commentary is extremely weak, however, and the Way Too Many Games review should be removed. Time Extension and this article provide only two paragraphs combined of commentary (I have seen games with similarly lacking reception get articles though). Despite this, it looks to me that reliable sources have adequately covered pre-release and development information. This article is an odd case where its notability hinges heavily on coverage of its development but I think that still counts. LBWP (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  We do also have two industry professionals (from Supercell and SFB Games) praising the game here. It's indeed not much on the reception, but that's fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Mable and any others who have found reliable sources mentioned above. MK at your service. 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment this article is under a DYK so I'm not sure if that needs to be put on hold. JuniperChill (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Yang Dang Khum

Battle of Yang Dang Khum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Thai bombing of Phnom Penh, this one doesn't appear to be a hoax, but the creator's editing pattern suggests that the text is AI-generated, with fake citations (which I have removed) that do not support any of the facts. This will need to be blown up and entirely rewritten to comply with verifiability requirements. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Franco-Thai_War#Campaign: mentioned there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Phil Amato

Phil Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lede reads like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[17]] and [[18]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are two similar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. All significant independent coverage is just routine coverage in the local newspaper of him switching to another news station. Appears to just be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL anchor. C F A 💬 22:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Mountmellick Athletic Club

Mountmellick Athletic Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability (found little reliable coverage under the GNG, and clubs are not covered under the sports guideline) Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Quadrantal (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Delete as nom. Quadrantal (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG. There are a few trivial mentions in the local newspapers but no significant coverage at all. The original creator probably had some sort of undisclosed COI with the subject since they have only ever made edits to this article. C F A 💬 22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. The current population is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND, it's verifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Keep: per WP:NPLACE.

  This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.

  Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?

  Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?

  There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.

  Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?

  If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.

  There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.

  I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I closed this as Keep but was asked to reopen this discussion so I have done so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Virgin Trains (open access operator)

Virgin Trains (open access operator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page already exists here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains MrBauer24 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, Virgin Trains is about a train operator that ceased in 2019, this is about a separate prospective operator with a different ownership structure. Virgin Trains was a franchised operator, if it comes to fruition, this will be an open access operator.In the same way that we have Flybe (1979-2020) and Flybe (2022–2023), same brand, but otherwise completely different. 00:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenfruy (talk • contribs)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, As said by Grenfuy, it is a different corporation.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

00:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.

  🍗TheNuggeteer🍗

  00:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge as it does not appear the future incarnation is yet notable. Can be covered within the extant article until such time as notability changes and it can be spun out. Star Mississippi 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Virgin Trains per Star. If they win the bid we can consider a split then Jumpytoo Talk 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Grenfruy, or merge to a new overview article about the various uses of the Virgin brand in relation to UK railways. I Oppose merging to an existing article because none of those listed Virgin Trains (disambiguation) are suitable merge targets (based on those articles and the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: For the same reasons as stated by Grenfuy as it is a different corporation. Rillington (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the new government's stated policy to renationalise the railways, is this proposal even valid any more? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)