Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 01 August 03 >

Purge server cache

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× ☎ 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASD Casoli Calcio

[edit]
ASD Casoli Calcio (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SIGCOV, the sources I talking about the team does not seems to he WP:RS. Correct me if I'm wrong though Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Speed#Series programming 2. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Nation

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
NASCAR Nation (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural speedy keep to nominate for CSD. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party of the ACP

[edit]
Political Party of the ACP (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. The article topic is not notable. I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited in this article; indeed, most of the sources are to Twitter. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s a reliable sources for you? Can you give me some examples? GalaxyExplorer77 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to our guideline on reliable sources and our policy on verifying information, a reliable source is a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Twitter is not a reliable source. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So could you name me some? GalaxyExplorer77 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Anthony J. Resta. czar 03:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Resta discography

[edit]
Anthony J. Resta discography (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 title of the article is "Anthony J. Resta discography, however very little of it is actually about anything Resta recorded himself. Instead it's a WP:COATRACK of everything he's ever been involved with in some manner, however minor the connection. I've looked this over for 40 minutes trying to think of what I could remove and keep but it's so much that I am failing at it. This discography article is almost all puffery and should be WP:TNTed and redone from scratch in an appropriate manner. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is Anthony J. Resta the Merge target article that is being considered? Because this article is ten times the size of the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I was really hoping to find some kind of consensus here, but after discarding the non-P&G-based arguments and those apparently canvassed here, we are still left with views split evenly. I don't think a fourth relisting, as suggested by the nom, would bring about a sea change in either direction. To avoid rehashing the same arguments, please do not renominate for six months. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Imre Vallyon (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 nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The key points to ponder include:

1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.

2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.

3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.

4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.

In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.--50.46.167.81 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’’Strong keep’’’: The coverage in the Stuff article clearly establishes [[WP

]]. He has published many books and ebooks. He was found guilty of the crimes, and I suspect that someone is trying to remove this site from Wikipedia because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.56.207 (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I'm seeing No consensus just like the last AFD in May 2024.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faizi Dehlvi, I edit from IP and this is allowed by Wikipedia. If all you can write is that fails "all notability guidelines" and accuse someone of COI, then I have similar concerns about you. As a matter of fact, one of the "users" was a paid editor here and was blocked for sockpuppeteering. The problem is that you came here with no arguments behind your opinion and started with non-constructive claims 50.46.167.81 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Assessment of the sources brought up: *
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Stuff Yes No apparent connection to Vallyon or his group Yes Major New Zealand newspaper Yes While focusing on his crimes, the article covers Vallyon himself in-depth ✔ Yes
Seattle Pi No Republished review from Blogcritics. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone."
 No Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that Blogcritics hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. Yes Review (albeit poorly written) of Vallyon's book ✘ No
NOS Yes No apparent connection to Vallyon or his group Yes Major Dutch publication ~ The articles focuses on the FHL breaking ties with Vallyon and on his crimes. Almost nothing about Vallyon not related to the crimes, or about his teachings. The FHL is a non-notable organization. ~ Partial
Horror News No Horror New's website has sections entitled "How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net?" and "How to Expedite your Film Review?" Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."
 No Yes Review (albeit poorly written) of Vallyon's book ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note that the two books reviews are both published on websites that churn out reviews for SEO, and that the only other two sources were published with a focus on his crimes. Absolutely nothing on his foundation, his teachings and philosophy, his books. Mooonswimmer 02:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Liz, I don't know if it is proper to ask but I'm hoping we could get a fourth and final relist. After reading WP:RELIST, I see might be possible. There's still some time and discussion needed to sort out the points that've been raised. 2 editors claim the subject meets GNG without providing any sources, while others say he meets notability as an author or criminal without showing which criteria he meets or backing it up with sources. Ynsfial (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ynsfial, the only time I've seen four relistings, it has been an accident, the relister didn't count the relistings correctly or just missed seeing one. In fact, there is a solid group of editors who don't think a discussion should be relisted more than twice. So, I don't see a 4th relisting happening. If there isn't a consensus, and I haven't reviewed this discussion thoroughly, it's more likely to close as "No consensus". A nominator always has an option to bring the article back for another go-round at a future AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Fernando Alonso. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimoa

[edit]
Kimoa (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 as WP:SIGCOV are virtually non-existent bar store pages, thus failing WP:NCORP. Sources consists of WP:PRIMARY (website and social media sites). Other third party sources center itself on Signor Alonso. WP:ATD will be a redirect into Fernando Alonso. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem management

[edit]
Problem management (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killucan helicopter crash

[edit]
Killucan helicopter crash (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)

While tragic, there is nothing to indicate that this aviation accident meets WP:NEWSEVENT (to the extent that lasting relevance is established, it has had impact on a significant region, or is otherwise sufficiently notable to exceed the WP:NOTNEWS threshold). In the discussion at Talk:Killucan helicopter crash, while many (all?) contributors appear to agree that the title is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, there is less clarity on whether the title should be retained as a redirect (as an alternative to deleteion). Or, if a redirect is retained, where it should direct the reader. Personally, as nom, I wonder if the title should simply be deleted. And any discussion/action, on whether/where the accident should be mentioned WP:WITHIN an another article, addressed in the course of "normal" editing. Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The accident is noted appropriately and adequately in the Accidents and incidents section of the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X article. An accident which has not risen to general encyclopaedic notability does not warrant mentioning in any other article, and certainly does not warrant its own dedicated article, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper.

Common accidents do not warrant attention in an encyclopaedia. The death toll here is minor, being limited to two victims only. The accident is distinguished from a common road accident only by the mode of transport – the helicopter – which sensationalises the incident slightly.

The unanimous consensus (so far) on the article talk page is that the incident lacks notability. I support article deletion without any redirect. Spideog (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb

[edit]
Chaudhry Aurangzeb (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)

At first glance, the BLP seems good with citations and the subject appears notable. However, upon closer evaluation of the coverage, it falls short of meeting the GNG. The coverage tends to be routine, interview-based, or promotional in nature, lacking sig/in-depth or even independent. Furthermore, as the subject is not a member of parliament, they do not fulfill the NPOL either. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of suspensions in the NFL

[edit]
List of suspensions in the NFL (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 list falls short of WP:NLIST, specifically that this list is not discussed as a group in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a catalog nor is it a sports almanac listing every instance of something happening. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. and Move to Family of Elon Musk. I generally do not move an article as part of an AFD closure but I strongly feel that this article shouldn't be moved to Errol Musk which has a page history of over 500 edits which would be deleted in an article page move. There could be a decision to restore this page one day so I'd rather the page history wouldn't be buried in a page history merge. There will need to be some editing to refocus this article on the entire Musk family rather than just on Errol Musk. If this goes to a Deletion Review, so be it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Familial relationships of Errol Musk

[edit]
Familial relationships of Errol Musk (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)

Errol Musk is not in any way notable independent of his relation to Elon Musk. He ran for public office, but was never elected, but was only elected once to a local city council, he was an engineer, but didn't do anything of note. There is nothing about him is notable other than that he was the father of Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Ah I missed that, but that was a local city council. None of the people in my city council have wikipedia pages. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be great if there is a comparison on how vocal he was compared to the famous Helen Suzman. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep*: He is an antiracist fighter AND elected representative AND father of Elon Musk - this 3 together is enough for a wikipedia page. 2A00:1110:143:1160:D1BF:A9E6:C3C3:862D (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have sources to prove this? "Trust me, bro" isn't quite what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor's comment obviously shows a deep unfamiliarity with AFD, but sourcing in the article does substantiate that Errol Musk was prominent leader then-embryonic anti-Apartheid movement. Feoffer (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous to have an article about someone's "familial relationships" without giving him his own article. Astaire (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BLP:

    BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

    Ergzay (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP absolutely applies to ALL articles, I just meant we shouldn't be covering a notable abuser on one of their victim's biographical articles. Feoffer (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Engineering, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)
The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got 4 different BLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.
An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.
I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this feedback.
I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what people "deserve". Please read WP:RGW. Astaire (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?
Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including that content with that justification is a WP:OR issue, unless reliable sources explicitly note the contradiction themselves. Astaire (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Plenty of notable source material for an article about the man more so than his "relations", especially since Musk Family got effectively yeeted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Errol Musk - Numerous sources discuss his own life, so that his bio would easily pass GNG. Surely his son's fame directed attention to him, just like Maye Musk, Kimbal Musk and Tosca Musk; we've got plenty of coverage for those individuals as well, who arguably wouldn't be notably featured in the press if Elon's life hadn't attracted so much scrutiny. Ironic that notability is not inherited, though in this case the hyper-notability of one person did engender notability of various family members... — JFG talk 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is still no consensus. Of interest, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Musk. I don't think that this article can be moved to Errol Musk as that page has an extensive page history that shouldn't be deleted, there could be issues with attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "strong consensus" but the link says "The result was redirect to Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability." which doesn't add up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep and move to Errol Musk. He's notable for his career in business and politics as well as his noteworthiness in the news. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if this person is that important, they can have their own article. Don't remove the deletion tag on the article either; I've restored it. Most sources are about Elon and even use him in the title; there's maybe one source that's vaguely about Errol. Famous by association isn't what we're looking for. The familial relationships of a non-notable individual are not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Errol Musk. Errol Musk is notable, you don't inherit notability but becoming notable or more notable because you are someone's father is not inheriting notability as its understood for wikipedia's purposes its just notability. Even if you want to say that Errol gets signficant coverage because Elon is his son (or Maye Musk is his ex-wife, she was notable before Elon was ever born... Or because of his two other notable kids... Or are they all inherited notability from Maye? Or do we go one step further... If this is the road we're on why is Maye's notability not inherited from Joshua N. Haldeman?) he does get signficant coverage independent of Elon and other notable family members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family of Elon Musk (which bizarrely points to Musk (disambiguation), despite describing a discrete topic), and add some lines on the rest of the notable family members there. For comparison, see Family of Barack Obama, Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower. BD2412 T 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, the article at a similar page title was converted to a Redirect at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination). Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was clearly a wrong outcome, and one that can be righted by a right outcome here. "Family of Elon Musk" pointing to a disambiguation page is nonsensical. It is not an ambiguous phrase. It is also inherently misleading, as there are people related to Elon Musk whose surname is not "Musk", and who should never be listed on a disambiguation page for the word. BD2412 T 03:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem ideal. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The True Audio

[edit]
The True Audio (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:NPRODUCT. Non-notable software product/project. Melmann 14:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paradha

[edit]
Paradha (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:NFF. No evidence that the film has begun principal photography. Melmann 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is evidence filming started: https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/telugu-cinema/paradha-anupama-parameswaran-goes-rustic-for-her-next-after-the-glamorous-tillu-square-101714179183161.html. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Radio Bay of Plenty. ✗plicit 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM 90.7 (New Zealand)

[edit]
FM 90.7 (New Zealand) (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:N. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lucknow

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of tallest buildings in Lucknow (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:NLIST. None of the mentioned buildings are notable by itself and aren't fulfilling GNG. No SIGCOV for the list article alone. Also, WP:NOTDIR. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I can WP:LINK WP:UPPERCASE WP:STUFF WP:ALSO. WP:PER List of tallest buildings in Chicago (FL), List of tallest buildings in New York City (FL), List of tallest buildings in Miami (FL), List of tallest buildings in Melbourne, List of tallest buildings in Sydney. There has to be more of an argument than "this is a list of tallest buildings in a city, which makes it a directory, which is bad". jp×g🗯️ 06:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 100 sources for the Sydney list, and many buildings have their own articles, unlike this list for Lucknow. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every building except 1 in the Chicago list is notable and has an article. Unlike this Lucknow list which has no notable buildings. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WORDINALLCAPS.
"This needs to be deleted because NOTDIR" is just not true.
Maybe it needs to be deleted, but WNOTDIR is not the reason why.
You can see that this is not the case, and this is now how NOTDIR actually works, by the fact that several city-based lists of tallest buildings are featured articles. If the problem is that this lacks sourcing, that is a separate issue. jp×g🗯️ 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't a directory, so WP:NOTDIR doesn't apply. But WP:NLIST does, and it fails this standard, as there is no evidence that Lucknow's tallest buildings as a set have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There is no such source in the article and I can't find one in my WP:BEFORE search. Moreover, there are vast amounts of unsourced information here and no available reliable sources that would validate the heights of all these buildings. The sourcing that does exist is WP:PRIMARY or based on Emporis, which remains in use on WP-EN but according to many noticeboard discussions cannot be considered reliable. Ultimately, without reliable sources discussing these buildings as a set, this article is an exercise in WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost all listed items are not notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Kyllingstad

[edit]
Einar Kyllingstad (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. Only primary sources provided. No Google news hits and 1 small mention in Google books. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak per criterion G11. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Navid jamshidi (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)

Recreation of article hidden in the page history of Navid Jamshidi, which was redirected just a few hours before the creation of this lowercase title. More reliable sources would need to be added for this subject to meet notability guidelines. Could also be redirected to Asia (economic newspaper) as an ATD. CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris
His name is on the Iranian website of the International Federation of Journalists https://ifj-farsi.org/?p=8785 Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
She is the editor of Asia (economic newspaper) and her fame is confirmed Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
Do not delete the article. If so, add more source tags so editors can add more sources. Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
Deutsche Farsi had an interview with Navid Jamshidi [13] Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
Voice of America Farsi interview with journalist Navid Jamshidi https://ir.voanews.com/a/navid-jamshidi-about-political-prisoners-in-evin/7016540.html Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
Journalism Agency is not a crime about journalist Navid Jamshidi
https://journalismisnotacrime.com/en/wall/navidjamshidi/ Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
News harana en navid jamshidi
https://www.en-hrana.org/tag/navid-jamshidi/ Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris
News keyhan London Navid Jamshidi
https://kayhan.london/1396/02/19/74273/ Mobinkhojasteboroumand (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobinkhojasteboroumand: Please do not ping me when responding to this discussion. The number of times you've mentioned me is excessive and is bordering on WP:HARRASSment, therefore, I want to kindly ask you to stop. I have this page on my watchlist so there's no need to ping me each time you reply. I honestly appreciate the fact that you've taken your time to provide all of these sources, but I would prefer if we let this discussion run its course and wait for some input from other editors before making a decision. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icon brand

[edit]
Icon brand (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)

Some kinda essay or dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. I am also nominating these pages for the same reason: Cult brand & Symbol-intensive brand. Polygnotus (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nyasa Times as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Chibaka

[edit]
Edgar Chibaka (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)

should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle did you happen to look at the Telegraph source I linked in my !vote? It’s comparable to the Evening Post as SIGCOV in my view. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, but I don't think it's sufficiently independent here: 'The annual event, for which The Telegraph is a media partner'. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dagnabbit, didn’t see that on my first read. Switching my !vote now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Week keep. The Yorkshire Evening Post and Daily Telegraph profiles bring it just over the line of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources for a WP:GNG pass. I would oppose a redirect; I think the Nyasa Times may be less notable than its founder. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. I'd like to close this as a Redirect but there is strong opposition to that outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Iran, Dubai

[edit]
Consulate-General of Iran, Dubai (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)

Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This one fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Version Control by Example

[edit]
Version Control by Example (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)

Found this while looking through orphans. A WP:BEFORE Fails to come up with any reviews or charts besides programming blogs. Even reviews linked on the author's website lacks anything for WP:NBOOK. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Ingalls

[edit]
Kenny Ingalls (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. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenpox (South Park)

[edit]
Chickenpox (South Park) (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 two sources, which do not appear to qualify as SIGCOV. There does not seem to be a justification based on notability as on why this episode should have a separate article (i.e. it could also be redirected to South Park (season 2). Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As said above, it may be WP:RS but two sources does not make it a WP:SIGCOV

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign any comments you make in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two sources can be sigcov, FWIW. The AV club piece is quite extensive and the other two sources are less so but are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESNA European Higher Education News

[edit]
ESNA European Higher Education 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)

Nominated on pl wiki for deletion as spam with possible hoax elements (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:17:ESNA European Higher Education News). It also seems to fail WP:NORG/WP:GNG. My BEFORE finds next to zero visiblity for this entity in GS/GB. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, the article was expanded and it meets WP:NSPORTS. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Luca Hámori

[edit]
Luca Hámori (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)

Participation at a singular athletic event at which one lost is not notable, existing coverage of the subject is at most notable for inclusion in Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics and or redirect to Imane Khelif#2024: Summer Olympics — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is now being worked on. I was literally adding a Reuters article reporting on her. Give it a day or two and you should see a decenrly fleshed out start.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:9F16:23A8:BD16:E25 (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no coverage of the subject unrelated to Imane Khelif. If the only reliable coverage of the subject is in relation to another subject, the article should be Merged. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgian regions by life expectancy

[edit]
List of Georgian regions by life expectancy (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 believe this article meets WP:NLIST. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTAT Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. and per Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. COI is not a valid rationale for deletion as it can be corrected through editing and notability is not judged by page views but by significant coverage by reliable sources. Charting on a recognized top chart can help establish notability but the absence of a charting hit does not mean that an artist is not notable by any means. We have articles on many notable musicians who never made a Billboard chart. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durand Bernarr

[edit]
Durand Bernarr (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 fails the criteria for WP:SINGER. Most of the information listed was provided by the subject (User:Durandbernarr). The page also does not get a lot of page views. Sackkid (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: [25], [26] and the few Billboard articles now used as sourcing give us enough to build a minimal article. The first Billboard source is but a paragraph long, but this individual seems to have some level of critical recognition. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Tiny Desk performance isn't enough to make someone notable. If that were the case, a lot of the musicians (local or otherwise) on that show would qualify for a Wikipedia article. As for the Billboard articles, none of them are featured articles on him, they just simply mention him; which makes him fail WP:SIGCOV. He hasn't charted on any Billboard chart. Again, he fails the music notability. If he had a charting song or even notable award like a Grammy, we wouldn't having this discussion. But at best, he is a slightly popular backup singer. From the articles I've read before nominating, he uses Erykah Badu as his claim to notability but without that, what makes him notable by Wikipedia criteria? And as stated, most of what was added to this page, was added by him, so that is a conflict of interest. Sackkid (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of this is written more like an advertisement biography that singers use on their website.
"in November 2012, he released his holiday EP titled "EXTRA Stankin' Christmas". He's also independently released various EP's and LP's distributed between 2010 and 2014 on Spotify, apple music and Bandcamp. Some of which have been removed. In September 2016, he released a 7 track EP, "Sound Check" and released a video for the lead single "Around". Bernarr collaborates with various known name as well as indie artists as a feature or providing backgrounds. He has collaborated and performed with Ari Lennox, Kaytranada, The Foreign Exchange, The Internet, Sam Sparro, Thundercat, Knxwledge, Qveen Herby, and Teedra Moses."
I could understand if he were listing the singers along with the tours as a way of going chronologically from one job to another but when you group together like this, it sounds more like a résumé. And then you have unsourced claims like his occupation is a "vocal arranger, pianist, DJ, skater, actor, host" and he also sings gospel and jazz; which songs are those? Sackkid (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There are multiple independent RS with significant coverage about this artist 1 2 3 4 5, which means the subject easily meets WP:GNG. The Grammys did a longform interview with him-- https://www.grammy.com/news/durand-bernarr-is-in-a-constant-state-of-arriving-on-new-album-wanderlust. And to the nominator's point about a potential COI, promotional language can and should be removed, but that's a separate point from whether he meets WP:GNG. If for some reason the admin decides to delete, I request that the article be dratfified.--Citrivescence (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But as per WP:SINGER which is the nature of this article, how does he meet that? He has no charting music, certified units, headlining tour(s), major record label music releases, major music award wins/nominations, no notable music competition placement, or radio notability. Furthermore, the links you shared are mainly reviewing his album "Wanderlust", with the exception of the first link which includes a brief background about singing backup for Erykah Badu. The articles are focused on his album which has not charted, been released on a major label, won a award or been certified gold/platinum etc.
    I know it seems like I'm aiming at the negative but it doesn't look like there is anything beyond this. I don't see any different than someone who went viral for 5 secs and then people moved on. For example, James Wright went viral for posting a review about Patti Labelle's pie and has since become a backup singer for Tamar Braxton but I don't think any of that helps him meet the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. I think the page should be deleted or downgraded to a draft until it is strong enough to be notable. If he wins a major award and becomes a music charting artist, then I think the page will have more to stand on.
    Sackkid (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Citrevescence in this discussion such as Ebony, Vibe, Bet, and Out and others and also an Allmusic staff written biography here that together show a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdeněk Dominik

[edit]
Zdeněk Dominik (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. There appears to be a namesake ice hockey player that gets coverage when I searched. But not for this speedway rider. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, yeah I thought that was the guy but no, Fails SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Incident management vs. problem management".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_August_2&oldid=1241181845"