Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 10

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!} 08:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros (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)

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. Most just show passing mention, or do not even mention the subject of the article at all. For example, This ref discusses the office relaxing the dress code, but does not discuss the office per se. This mentions the "DepEd Taguig-Pateros administrator", but again, does not discuss the office per se. This has the office denying a "maternity leave scam" existing, but again, does not discuss the office in depth. This and this merely discusses transfer of schools from the Makati office to Taguig-Pateros due to the Makati–Taguig boundary dispute, but, you guessed it, did not discuss either of the two offices. None of these show WP:SIGCOV and if someone shows up saying "these satisfy WP:SIGCOV in my view" that person has to actually point out where. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This was originally nominated as a batched nomination with other similar articles but I screwed up and decided to just nominate these separately. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling the attention of the participants of the original AFD (Hariboneagle927 and AstrooKai). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article and merge the list of schools to Pateros#Education and List of schools in Taguig. This school division is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Why is there even stand-alone articles for school divisions in the Philippines? I don't think any school divisions in the country is that notable for an article.AstrooKai (Talk) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge content as suggested by AstrooKai and for the same reason. The sourcing does not warrant a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 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. No opposition and nominator said keep. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Technical College (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 independent references or evidence of notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (soft) -- per WP:NUNI, legitimate academic institutions are generally inherently notable. By all accounts, this appears to be an important educational institution in Zambia. That said, I would not be shocked if consensus fell in the opposite direction. Relying on a single primary source is not great (to say the least). I found this, but I'm not sure how much notability a single article establishes. There is also this, though it seems a bit PR-ish. That said, I'm not sure what sort of sources one should expect out of Zambia (WP:NOTLEVEL). Alternatively, a merge into education in Zambia should be considered.MWFwiki (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think WP:NUNI actually means 'anything called a college is inherently notable', I read it as 'Universities' (which the US call 'colleges'), or colleges as sub-divisions of a university. "legitimate academic institutions" is far too broad. It's not clear to me from the article that Nortec is such a higher-education establishment. JeffUK 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “In general, most legitimate higher-education colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia.”

  The intent is to cover “most” higher-education institutions. I’m not against editing the body, but I felt it was pretty clear that it was an engineering college immediately upon reading. (Also, the U.S. utilizes “colleges” and “universities” fairly interchangeably, though the latter is typically used when an institution reaches a certain size.) MWFwiki (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NUNI is neither policy nor guideline and says as much. It also says This notability advice is an application of the general notability guideline. There is no shortcut here. The appropriate P&G is at WP:NSCHOOL, which says:

  All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline.

  For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

  So if we have no secondary sources, there should not be an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, I disagree. I am not attempting to take a "shortcut," but NUNI exists for a reason. Particularly considering WP:NOTLEVEL. Again, I'm not sure what you're expecting to see come out of Zambia. Regardless, just at a glance, I've found:

  “Strong economic and traditional values are what underlay the country’s success and through institutions such as NORTEC, we look forward to sharing these values with the people of Zambia,” he [Zambian Security Minister Fackson Shamenda] said. At the same occasion, NORTEC principal Victor Mulenga said the dinner was held to raise funds for projects that the college needed to implement to better the learning surrounding for students as it commemorated 50 years of existence recently. 'NORTEC has been in the industry for 50 years now but infrastructure has run down due to the increase in student population. It is in this vein that the college requires to expand its library, erect a wall fence around the institution and improve on the internal road infrastructure,' he said. Mr Mulenga said the library expansion project required K2, 400, 650, while erecting the wall fence would gobble K779, 376 and K1,205,000 would be required for the road works. NORTEC was officially opened on September 19, 1964 to offer training in technical and vocational skills which are available up to Diploma level."^[1]

  Along with the two other references I mentioned earlier. It is also mentioned^[2] in the USG's 1969 Area Handbook for Zambia. We're going to need to take a hard look -- and perhaps we should -- at the Wikilinked-members of the list of universities in Zambia if we delete this. MWFwiki (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not expressed a view as to whether sources exist at this point as I have not searched nor reviewed what we have. My point is only that the appropriate guideline is NSCHOOL, and I have quoted what it says. We need to show this meets GNG or NORG. You can disagree with that if you wish, but that is the consensus view as found in the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC. So that is what we are working to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alrighty, then MWFwiki (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are a few other sources out there, I think it is, technically speaking, a stretch to say it meets GNG but as it's still in operation so it's not a dead duck, I tend to err on the side of retention especially in under-covered areas of the world.JeffUK 09:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC) - Note, searching for 'NORTEC' throws up a few more sources too JeffUK 10:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not for profit public institution and its fairly long historical existence. Mekomo (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I proposed the deletion because the institution did not seem notable from its description in the article and there were no independent citations. Although longevity is not the same as notability, it still seems that it is notable, and that if some of the information and references in this discussion is incorporated into the article, it can be kept. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If the nom. is now voting keep, this could be speed kept as withdrawn as there are no opposing !votes. I found multiple mentions of NORTEC in books, mostly biographies of people who studied there, or reports of survey results and other such stuff. Those are not significant in their coverage, but I think it is telling that so many books have a passing mention. Howeve, this one has a little more:

• Blaug, Mark; Scanlon, David G. (5 September 2013). World Yearbook of Education 1968: Education Within Industry. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-16842-0.

See chapter 14, The Historical and Social Background to Industrial Education in Zambia. This shows that even as far back as 1968, NORTEC has industry backing for apprenticehsip training and a standard industrial education. This is born out by the many mentions in the likes of [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)

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 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division of City Schools–Navotas (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)

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. For example, this is not even a passing mention. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the attention of the participants of the original AFD (Hariboneagle927 and AstrooKai). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per nominator. Not seeing virtually any notability, even with a generous reading of WP:NSCHOOL, and definitely not under GNG. (this comment is by User:MWFwiki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please sign your opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, not sure why my signature didn’t go through. Cheers (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, MWFwiki. I find an editor only needs to be reminded of this once and then they never forget. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:09, 15 December 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 Pateros#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pateros Schools District (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)

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. Most just show passing mention, or do not even mention the subject of the article at all. The only ref is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the attention of the participants of the original AFD (Hariboneagle927 and AstrooKai). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article and merge the list of schools to Pateros#Education. The school district is not notable enough to warrant its own article.AstrooKai (Talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pateros#Education as suggested by AstrooKai. The sourcing does not support a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 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 BBC Radio 4 programmes#Sitcoms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Science (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 radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: all kinds of hits on the phrase, nothing found for a radio program. Lack of sourcing. What's now in the article for sourcing isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This was all I could find [7], still not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_BBC_Radio_4_programmes#Sitcoms: listed there (merge whatever content can be merged). (FWIW, I had indicated a Redirect should be considered when I DPD the page (same nominator)) -Mushy Yank. 21:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found enough sourcing to prove that the subject exists but not enough to prove notability. It merits acknowledging that the title seems to bring up false positives. Low signal to noise ratio. Someone with more knowledge of the show or its context might have better results. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 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!} 05:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Broughton (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)

Four years after the notability banner was added, the article remains largely unsourced with two of the three references for this article being Broughton's own blog. PlateOfToast (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Sportspeople, Wrestling, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The blog sources weren't at all difficult to replace. He was profiled plenty of times in the media when he stood for leadership of UKIP, though the profiles are largely similar to one another and not tremendously long (Broughton came fourth and seems to have sunk without trace). Being a losing candidate in a national paerliamentary election doesn't give much weight in my view, and the current weight (and unsourced analysis) in the current Wikipedia article is not warranted. I'd probably incline towards "Weak delete" and maybe mention the candidates for UKIP leader, in the UKIP Wikipedia article.Sionk (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we have deleted the articles of dozens of similar political persons. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 11 December 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!} 21:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherkat Omana (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 topic is not notable and the sources do not cover the topic in detail Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Tarikhejtemai. There are very few sources about this and none outside of Baha'i publications I can find.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Baháʼí Faith in Iran. It should have been added there first. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The only source that appears to be independent is a Minority Rights Group report from 1985 that is not available online and difficult to even verify what it says. The inclusion of Category:Front organization gives a clue as to the intentions of making an independent article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cuñado You can't "delete and merge". If you merge something you have to keep the page, even if as a redirect, for copyright reasons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess delete then. My point was that a paragraph or so would be due weight at Baháʼí Faith in Iran but not notable enough for its own article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 11 December 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!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Stoyke (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)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This definitely seems like WP:SIGCOV, meeting WP:SPORTCRIT at least. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. JTtheOG has found a good source here. Additional coverage available in Bild, Ostfriesen Zeitung, and Nordwest Zeitung. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BILD rules that one out. The OZ articles are freely inaccessible but the NZ article is purely routine. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, TIL. I'll strike the Bild article accordingly. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:40, 15 December 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!} 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert MacKenzie (darts player) (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)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:13, 16 December 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!} 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renan Dias (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 footballer. Fails GNG and only played at semi-pro level in Canada RedPatch (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 11 December 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 Youth work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth worker (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)

For a possible merge into youth work. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, are you asking for a merger? There are ways to do that that don't involve AFD, but now that we're at it, I spot Community youth workers which is in an even worse state. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Youth work, which is what all the references are really talking about. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I thought we had a separate place to discuss mergers, but ok. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 11 December 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!} 21:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of City of Rocks (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 establishment of notability. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Idaho, and Utah. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Fails WP:MILNG. The only source cited falls under WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, this should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Garudam ^Talk! 22:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing nearly every criteria in WP:NEVENTS: lasting events, geographical scope, duration of coverage, diversity of sources. One newspaper article isn't going to get the job done. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in Josephy's The Civil War in the American West or Cutrer's Theater of a Separate War. I turned up a passing mention in an 1865 government report. Nothing that shows evidence of notability here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, and this user has a history of adding what is essentially trivia to articles about California in the Civil War taken almost exclusively from contemporary newspaper accounts. This article is no exception. Intothatdarkness 02:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and admonishment to the creator User:Tablelegs6. "Battle of City of Rocks" yields zero results on Google/Books/News. Beyond a single primary source of an 1862 newspaper article being insufficient to base an article on, it's wildly inappropriate to just make names up as if this is an actual title given by historians. That does not appear to be the case and "battle" is not in the source. Is there any other coverage of this event? What is the historical significance? City of Rocks National Reserve#History could certainly use expansion with sources like [8], but standalone articles on events covered in one contemporaneous newspaper article is not what we need. A second admonishment for the article being a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the primary source, for example the source says "...which gave the travelers the impression that they were bringing to them beef. In a short time however, other Indians were seen coming out in all directions, mounted and on foot. Between thirty and forty Indians, mounted on fine large horses, very shortly after came dashing down upon them and commenced firing" and the article says "which gave them the impression that they were bringing some beef. As that was happening other Natives were seen coming out in all directions, some on horses others on foot. Between 30-40 Indians mounted on horses and rushed the men then opened fire." Even if this is out of copyright, it's not appropriate to copy and paste one news report and just make minor changes and call it an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 05:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also nominated the creator's similarly single-source-paraphrased articles with manufactured titles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Affair and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sulphur Springs, may also do Tanori's Raid and Skirmish at Grass Valley in the morning. Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The paraphrasing is a common issue with this author. I've been doing cleanup in many California Civil War unit articles centering on this very thing. Intothatdarkness 13:09, 11 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khilli Ram Meena (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 indication this person is meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO the only source is a press release by the government. It is an appointed position with no inherent notability attached to it. I can't find any other sources to support this person is notable for anything else. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mizoram-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I came across this article during my general monitoring of unreferenced articles. Had it not already been tagged for deletion, I would have draftified it, to give the creating editor a chance to flesh it out in draftspace - I completely agree that it does not belong in mainspace in the state that it's in - on the basis that they might have other sources in mind. As the article is only very recently created, that seemed to me to be a reasonable thing to do, and a good alternative to deletion at this stage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - at this point of time only appointment article exist and recently appointed to a notable position in state so i think this article may get notability in future but for now it is better to draftify it , WP:TOOSOON TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: As per @SunloungerFrog Zuck28 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yo , i wanted to let you know that this page is now in a much improved stage. Since it was first created about around 10 days ago, I have also contributed significantly by adding two or three reliable sources. With these updates, I believe the article now meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biography (WP:ANYBIO). Hoping page can be continue to improve in the future, so the deletion template should be removed now. If it still doesn’t fit the criteria, then the template should not be removed.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper I appreciate your help but all those sources are either a re-release of the announcement press release or built off of it without any real further significant coverage. They still don't meet the threshold. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:10, 17 December 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. No deletion rationale provided here and the article's nomination by its creator is very confusing. If you want the article deleted, you can always investigate the possibility of a CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Mistry (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)

Since this is tagged with the notability tag, adding here for discussion on deletion. (Article creator here, staying neutral on the discussion) GnocchiFan (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Rather than staying "neutral", we would much rather have you contribute to the discussion, since you probably have a familiarity with the topic, with emphasis on the question: are there more reliable sources on the person? Or are there not? Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. The nominator has not asserted a rationale for deletion. Articles tagged for notability may well be notable; nominator is required to do a WP:BEFORE before nominating to evaluate sources in the article and potential sources that exist. This non-nomination should be withdrawn or, failing that, speedy kept for lack of rationale. This is just a waste of the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 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. Please do not nominate articles you created for AFD discussions if you are not seeking deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyōko Nakano (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)

Since this is tagged with the notability tag, adding here for discussion on deletion. (Article creator here, staying neutral on the discussion) GnocchiFan (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Notabilty not apparent yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: the books and associated exhibition/stage adaptation from the series Scary Pictures (see article linked on JP WP) have received a fair amount of significant coverage in reliable media outlets so that I consider that she meets WP:AUTHOR (she also might meet WP:ACADEMIC ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") and even WP:GNG for that matter. Side note: I appreciate the honesty of the nominator/creator but I removed the notability tag, the page being discussed here. -Mushy Yank. 22:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references in the article as currently written seem more than sufficient for notability as author / academic. Agree with @Mushy Yank

Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 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 delete (G5) by Pppery‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monel Felix (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:BLP of an alleged criminal, not properly sourced as passing the intentionally high WP:PERP bar for Wikipedia articles about criminals. One of the four footnotes here is just present to tangentially verify a stray fact about the impoverishment of a neighbourhood impacted by an event, which has absolutely nothing to do with establishing the notability of Monel Felix at all, whereas the other three footnotes were all published entirely within the past 24 hours, and are not about Monel Felix but just glancingly namecheck him as the alleged, but not confirmed or charged or convicted, mastermind of the event.
As per PERP, however, people do not get Wikipedia articles for being merely alleged to have committed a crime: he would have to be convicted of a crime to get an article on that basis, and qualifying him for an article now would require a much stronger claim of preexisting notability supported by much stronger sourcing about him than this. For the moment, this runs afoul of both PERP and WP:NOTNEWS: there may be a stronger basis for notability, and better sourcing for it, in the future, so no prejudice against recreation if and when that materializes, but this amount of content and sourcing is not enough yet. We can get into a lot of trouble, as well as causing problems for our article subjects, if we get anything wrong, so for BLP reasons we have to be extremely careful about tying notability to crime — so the bar is conviction, not just allegation, and the sourcing has to be really, really solid and airtight.
Although this isn't a deletion rationale per se, it also warrants note that this article persistently misspells the country's name as "Thaiti" instead of "Haiti", which suggests a WP:CIR issue. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Haiti. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This individual isn't notable; the events surrounding the multiple deaths could be. An article could probably be created around this. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the notability because I largely agree with you, but I feel like this raises an interesting question. Does anyone even get convicted of crimes in Haiti anymore? The government is collapsed. Anyone there can do anything and without a functioning legal system there is no process to convict or to charge. He's never going to be convicted because who would convict him? It is impossible for any criminal in Haiti to have an article then. Interesting situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti doesn't seem to have a functioning government, or one that's around for very long, so this seems to be the situation. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that way, I think PERP may need to be interpreted more liberally in cases like this, as no one can be convicted in the country. However I'm speaking for other cases that may be similar as this one does not seem to be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we get a sudden rush of Haitian criminals needing articles, we can look at PERP, otherwise I'm not too worried. This particular individual doesn't seem to meet our requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - qualifies for speedy deletion. Created by a sock puppet. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:30, 12 December 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!} 05:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Intercontinental (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)

Created by a blocked sockpuppet. No evidence of notability. Tagged as such for a year without improvement. I checked a few sources and they all seemed to be unreliable, not significant coverage, variations of the same press release, etc. etc. This is related to but not quite the same as Miss Intercontinental which has been deleted and salted a bajillion times. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Weak but, sources such as UFDC, Pageantopolis, and El Diario (though with local focus) counts towards notability. Some archived coverage's are also found here: El Paso Herald Post, Kokomo Tribune 1, Kokomo Tribune 2. Enough to pass WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pageantopolis is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Sources (and I'm highly dubious of the reliability/independence of a source attributed to "admin" - why was nobody willing to sign their name to it). I have know idea what UFDC is meant to refer to (that acronym doesn't appear in the article at all). El Paso Herald Post and Komoko Tribune 2 are both single passing mentions in a long list of people attending an event, which isn't significant coverage. El Diario is too short to be considered significant coverage of any kind. Komoko Tribune 1 is closest, but I think you would need more than "person wins this contest" spruced up with a few biographical details to truly establish notability for a topic with as sorry a history as this one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ecuador is a country that is literally named after the equator (which runs through it) that separates the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Articles on the English-language Wikipedia have to be mindful of WP:WORLDVIEW and Wikipedia:Notability is not a level playing field so that countries like Ecuador with a smaller population and fewer media outlets are not intentionally or unintentionally discriminated against and excluded. Yahsabaot (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Way to go with accusing me of bad faith while failing to provide any actual argument against deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does Ecuador have to do with a pageant that's 50 years old at this point? There have been several winners from multiple countries, that seems a rather worldly view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes kindly stick to the rationale per our P&Gs to explain why the article should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lots of coverage for Miss Teen International [9], this is the Intercontinental version, which has little to no coverage that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Withdrawing my 'keep' vote and spporting 'delete'. Mistaken for both Miss Teen International and Intercontinental were the same (thanks to Oaktree b for clarification). Upon review, I also don't find coverage enough to meet GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:01, 11 December 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 Oppanda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iddaru (2024) (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)

Duplicate article of another one that exists hidden in the page history of Iddaru (2024 film), which is clearly about the same film, though it isn't entirely clear why that article was BLARed. Both articles should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is Oppanda Kannada Language Movie releaseed in 2022, But Iddaru is remake Movie in Telugu Languagw Movie. The Iddaru (2024 film) can be Murged or redirected to this article Sudheerbs (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: can you explain what are the reasons for deletion for this article?

The history seems to be

• 23 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) created by @Monhiroe:
• 25 October 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Oppanda as a dubbed version by @DareshMohan:
• 26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) created by @Sudheerbs:
• 26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024 film) redirected to Iddaru (2024) by Sudheerbs
• 26 November 2024 Iddaru (2024) nominated for deletion by CycloneYoris
• The only discussion I have found is at Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? started by @Herodyswaroop:
• The Telugu article seems to be at te:ఇద్దరు (2023 సినిమా). TSventon (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I haven't expressed any desire to delete this article, and brought it to AfD mainly because of the duplicate article that exists, which is why I suggested to merge it with the existing one. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had this discussion before, this is a kannada movie dubbed in telugu and @Dareshmohan has confirmed this. So, we can merge with Oppanda article and mention iddaru is its telugu version comment added by Herodyswaroop (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and restore redirect of Iddaru (2024 film) to Oppanda per Herodyswaroop. Dubbed / partially reshot films do not get articles. Read Talk:Oppanda#@Telugu film dubbed in Kannada? for proof that the film is dubbed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamadheera (2024 film) for the precedent set that dubbed films do not get articles. The definition of a partially reshot film is a film where a minor part of the film was reshot and a majority wasn't. See List of multilingual Indian films#Partially reshot films, 99% of partially reshot films, do not get articles. The one instance where it has a separate article, 50% of the film was in fact reshot. The reason that this film can not get a separate article is that the lip sync issues are clear from the trailer itself. This [10] lacks lip sync while the same dialogue from the original [11] is in perfect lip sync.

As per the comment at the Indian cinema taskforce here, even if they are reshot partially, it still doesn’t need a separate article. If we are to delve into original research, they reshot a single dialogue in Telugu here vs the original here. The makers of the film were smart enough to release the same trailer as the original version. Complete with English dialogues, only the English dialogues would be in lip sync. When the trailer itself lacks lip sync, do you expect the film to be a straight film?

Regarding the Telugu wiki, even dubbed Telugu films get an article there. Apart from Hindi, since the 1990s several films have been dubbed in Telugu and became mainstream. DareshMohan (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect back: to Oppanda. Dubbed movies should be mentioned on the page of the original film, rather than having a standalone article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oppanda: Dubbed film. It can be redirect Monhiroe (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Oppanda and redirect: If it's notable, I'll go for keep, but for now, hmmm..... Intrisit (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is telugu stright film,this film made by telugu tamil and Kannada langues, each and every shot shooted in three langueges. Pandu147 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this one This movie is indian telugu language movie. AND PLZ ACTIVATE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandu147 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus yet. Also, keep !votes, kindly provide your rationale why the article should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:35, 10 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supranet (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:NCORP. Themoonisacheese (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i'll make my delete position clearer in order to initiate the discussion: As has been shown in the article's talk page, "supranet" is not a word being used outside (and from the lack of any hits on search engines, even inside) of Gartner, Inc. It's a transparent attempt by the company to try to coin a word to describe what was obviously going to happen to anyone in the space at the time, which on its own wouldn't warrant deletion if it succeeded. The attempt failed in favor of the much more ubiquitous term Internet of things. Anecdotally, I work for a semiconductor company in the IOT space and none of our internal documents have ever mentionned "supranet", despite what it describes being bang on our market segment. Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Themoonisacheese I disagree. While it's definitely an antiquated term, I've found some sources (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/713268,https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/629396) that indicate it was not used by just one company, and was (at one point) a potentially useful phrase. I think the article should be kept so that those who come across the term can still easily find out what it means. I'm happy to put in as much work into this as needed. JarJarInks (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarJarInks: the articles you linked do not describe the same things as listed in the article we're talking about. they're describing Virtual private networks, as abstractions of private networks over the regular internet (hence, supra). If you want posterity for the antiquated use of "supranet" meaning what is now a VPN, i suggest adding a note on the VPN page. Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Themoonisacheese Is it possible to make this page into a redirect to VPN? I agree that the article's original subject doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Also, sorry about any confusion, I'm really new. JarJarInks (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sure, this is what we're here for. simply add a reply (ideally to the root of this thread) with "redirect" bolded (see WP:DISCUSSAFD) Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Virtual private network

JarJarInks (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:34, 10 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Media (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 isn't any significant coverage for this label. There are trivial mentions but nothing more. Frost 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article functions as a list of artists on the label. A majority of the artists are blue linked per WP:CSC (and can be expanded to more as I found sufficient sourcing for a couple), and there's several notable albums that make up a category attached to the page. Popturtle (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a company that doesn't meet the notability guideline for companies. Notability is not inherited. Having notable artists or albums doesn't make the label itself notable. Frost 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:33, 10 December 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 Survival (TV series). Owen× ☎ 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The London Scene (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)

Article about a television documentary film, not properly sourced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, films (regardless of their status as theatrical or television films) are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show some evidence of their significance (awards, cultural impact, etc.) referenced to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this cites no referencing at all, and even its external link is a dead directory listing that just redirects back to the front splash page of the site rather than to any profile of the film, while searching that site for this film title fails to bring up evidence of any profile existing at a different URL either.
As I don't have good access to archived British media coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can find enough coverage to salvage this, but simple existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Survival (TV series), which already has a paragraph about it as the first Survival film. While there are references to it in books about nature documentaries, it seems to always be in the context of the series - and looking at TV listings for 1st February 1961, it only aired in London, Anglia and the Southeast, which will limit contemporary reviews. It's a plausible search term, though, so the redirect is probably worthwhile. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My usual source-check is confounded by the (probably not coincidental) Virginia Woolfe work of the same name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. I looked for sourcing for this back before the first relist but couldn't find any independent coverage. I was hoping that maybe others would find more, but it looks like there was no success on this end. I wasn't able to find anything to imply that it was particularly discussed at the time of its initial release either. It was mostly TV listings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:16, 17 December 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. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Murphy (broadcaster) (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)

Sounds like a cool chap, but there's insufficient sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Canada. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I couldn't find much of anything in Canadian media about this person; certainly a local legend, but that's about where it stays I suppose. Not enough coverage to have a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Last comment in the prior AfD wanted time to analyze the thousands of hits that came up in the newspaper archive, none of which were ever added here. Leading me to believe that this is not a notable individual for our purposes. The article has stayed pretty much the same when you look at the history back to 2018; having a prize at the local schoolboard is nothing notable here, the Blues Society prize would be too local for notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't have newspapers.com access at the time of the first discussion, so I couldn't review what the final commenter claimed to have seen, but I do have that access now — so I can confirm that once the search is sufficiently constrained to ensure that you're only hitting Brian Murphy the CHEZ-FM radio host from Ottawa and not other unrelated Brian Murphys, it consists predominantly of radio program schedule listings, which aren't support for notability, and what there is for substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him doesn't surpass the purely local at all, and doesn't really add up to enough to make him markedly more notable than other local radio personalities who don't have articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 11 December 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Akbar (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 person is not notable. The reference provided are only of some news, that too 'times of india', mentioning he is involved in a criminal case. His name itself came into the news just because he is accused involved in some criminal illegal activities. clearly fails natability. Also the references are arabnews and http://www.muhammmadnabi.info which is self published.No references, no structure, no good writing. ShukoorVarikkodan UA (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and India. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I believe there is enough coverage spanning several years, which helps pass WP:GNG. For example, Deccan Chronicle (11 July 2016), Indian Express (20 March 2018), Scroll (3 March 2018), TOI (23 January 2021). TOI is not unreliable always, per WP:TIMESOFINDIA. I wonder there would be more in Malayalam language which I don't know. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• CU Note The OP is a sock, now blocked. I'm going to close this as quick keep. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 10 December 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. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alkis Raftis (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)

He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and also fails WP:ACADEMIC with not much impact on his field and only few publications that are not widely cited. Ynsfial (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Dance, and Greece. Ynsfial (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom. Axad12 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: h-index of 4; one reference to a connected source; my Google search found no significant, independent coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found one book review, JSTOR 1477747. That's not enough even to make an article about the book and redirect to it, and definitely not enough for WP:AUTHOR. We also don't have evidence for WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 11 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genrich Sillé (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)

Disputed draftification, so here we are. It's hard to imagine this footballer being notable, playing in the amateur Dutch Tweede Divisie. Sources are WP:ROUTINE transfer announcements. Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond routine transfer announcements, found some passing mentions in routine match reports in Dutch regional media, two post-match interviews, and some of the usual database entries, but can't find anything beyond that. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. AddWittyNameHere 13:15, 12 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haringey Solidarity Group (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)

Extremely minor anarchist group, little evidence to demonstrate notability. Large absence of independent RS. Attempts to find sources largely fruitless, references in Scholar results predominantly self-published works or very brief mentions that aren't the subject of the article. PROD opposed due to results flagged in Google Books but from those accessible look to be unrelated. Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real signs of notoriety here. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there's mentions of this local London-based group in a number of books, I haven't found sufficient coverage for it to pass the GNG or WP:NORG. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 14 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian League (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 minor, short-lived political party with no impact. None of the sources provide significant attention, the fourth one doesn't even mention the party. Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not meet the notability criteria under WP:GNG, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Additionally, WP:NORG is not satisfied. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:NORG are not met. As noted by the nom, the only sources in the article are either directory-style webpages (the database/registry entries expected for any such org) or, as noted, webpages which do not mention the org at all. Outside the article, my own WP:BEFORE has returned only trivial passing mentions like this or this - seemingly confirming the named candidate's association with the party, but not anywhere near the type/depth of coverage needed to establish NORG. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 December 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 Rammstein#Tours. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein Tour 2016 (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:NTOUR, article relies on primary sources. मल्ल (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rammstein#Tours. Definitely fails WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:NTOUR. (It's generally not a good sign when it's "(musician) tour (year)" type names - almost a guarantee its a more run-of-the-mill set of tour dates.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 10 December 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 Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest. Owen× ☎ 17:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Holland (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 Template:Did you know nominations/Phoebe Plummer, I argued that this BLP does not meet the independent notability standards of WP:CRIMINAL; the article creator disagreed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Environment, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Perhaps more input from others here. It was a protest, and in some ways exactly the result they were looking for. She was sentenced to prison time. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that Maile66, but is that relevant to the notability criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The protest might be notable, this person likely isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pet WP:NOT. The last time I looked, we were not a a hagiography. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This very much looks like WP:BLP1E. Am I missing something? TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launchballer? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Throwing soup at a painting isn't quite the level of criminal notability we look for... Could be mentioned in a brief article about the incident itself, not warranting an article for the individual. Or a one line mention in the article about the painting. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest seems like a fine alternative, I wasn't aware the article already existed. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of the article has received sustained international coverage over multiple years for their climate protests, and WP:GNG is met. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here because this is not a "a low-profile individual" and their "role was both substantial and well documented." GeorgiaHuman (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Getting arrested at a protest in 2022? That's trivial coverage; most of the coverage is focused on the soup throwing incident. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I'm not seeing much coverage for her specifically that isn't about her involvement in the protest, and we already have an article for the protest itself meaning that's a better alternative than deleting the article outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Oaktree b, I'm not seeing independent notablity from the soup throwing event. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 14 December 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 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarParts.com (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)

Following my nomination of Auto Parts Warehouse, I’m now nominating its parent company, Carparts.com, as its notability is highly dubious as well. All of the references currently listed are primary sources. The additional sources I’ve found derive their content substantially from primary sources (the company's press releases, financial reports, etc.). It appears that the company lacks independent reporting or analysis of its operations, achievements, or impact.

Another issue with Carparts.com is the presence of multiple links and redirects to its official website across other Wikipedia pages. It seems that the company is misusing Wikipedia for SEO benefits and promotional purpose.

Examples of links & redirects

1. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Lexus_LS contains a reference http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/LexusLS600/ redirecting to http://www.carparts.com/blog/2008-lexus-ls600h-l-road-test-review/

2. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Automotive_battery a link to https://www.carparts.com/blog/a-short-course-on-charging-systems/

3. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=BMW_7_Series_(E38) a link to http://www.carparts.com/bmw/740i

4. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wheel_alignment a link to http://www.carparts.com/alignment.htm

5. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Alfa_Romeo_33_Stradale a link to http://www.familycar.com/Classics/68AlfaT33Stradale/ redirecting to https://www.carparts.com/blog/1968-alfa-romeo-t33-stradale/ Maxvolt (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Maxvolt (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, it seems like a possible attempt at promotion. I say: Delete. ParvatPrakash (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ref bombed article with no single reliable source out of 32 references in the article as of the time I commented in this AFD. All sources come from PR distributors such as BusinessWire, PR Wire and the others published on reliable news websites are same copies published on PR wire and Business wire. It fails WP:NBASIC even if all 32 sources are combined. Mekomo (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One Motley Fool story [12], which I don't think is a RS and a Forbes contributor [13], don't help notability. Rest of the sourcing is as explained in the nom. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would think a publicly traded company would have more in-depth coverage about itself; however, I cannot find any. There are a few that may be borderline WP:ORGCRIT (I still think those few fall short btw) but the majority is just press releases and routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 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 Telugu films of 2021#October – December. ✗plicit 14:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sundarangudu (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. A cursory search didn't help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a television film. Why was this listed on the Television Project's alert list?-Mushy Yank. 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No review of the film other than the announcement of the release of the film. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2021#October_–_December -Mushy Yank. 15:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2021#October_–_December. RangersRus (talk) 16:34, 12 December 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 11:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhasagar (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 page does not list any reliable sources. All that's listed are media and news articles in vernacular languages. The language of the page is also not appropriate for Wikipedia. Additionally, it does not conform to BLP policies and the subject of the article seems to have low notability. Seems unfit to me for Wikipedia ParvatPrakash (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article features unsuitable language for an encyclopaedia. Also, no references to establish notability. All I could find was news articles in Hindi only, without any solid biographical matter.Goyama (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No secondary sources as per WP:RS mention the subject. I tried finding some, but didn't find any that could be considered secondary. Even if language is not in line with WP:BLPSTYLE, it can be taken care of. A few sentences also violate WP:GRAPEVINE and most of the content in lede violates WP:OR and seems to have been written by a devotee/follower of the subject or at least someone with a conflict of interest. Expectopatronum30 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not hard to find secondary sources unless notability is actually low. I would volunteer to improve the language of the article, but it's the sources that are the problem. ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nom-- tagging User:RJShashwat here as they might also be able to help decide better with their activity in this project. ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @ParvatPrakash. I am curious to know why was this article not nominated for deletion using WP:PROD. It contains pedestrian language that does not reflect WP:MOS. It should have been deleted much earlier. RJShashwat (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry, I just noticed that it was nominated for WP:PROD earlier, but was not deleted. Anyways, I think it is better to not have this article in the main-space unless the subject gains more notability. Since there is not much referenced content, moving it to the draft-space is not worth much. RJShashwat (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Article does not meet WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:MOS. The subject has poor notability with only news headlines and no other WP:RS mentioning them. They definitely do not deserve an independent article. RJShashwat (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article for starters doesn't meet the notability criteria. Additionaly, since I can understand and speak Hindi fluently - the references from Dainik Bhaskar only describes the content of his sermons, while the only remaining source from Rajasthan Patrika isn't accessible The AP (talk) 17:21, 14 December 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 11:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raimund Berens (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)

Cannot find any worthwhile coverage of this person. Run-of-the-mill businessman/film producer. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources that pass notability not found in the before search result and article has been in violation of BLP guidelines for lack of sources since 2013. Mekomo (talk) 14:39, 10 December 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 nominator conceded the existence of sources meeting our guidelines. Improvement and expansion can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago Gold Rush (basketball) (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 and WP:NORG DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is alot of work but the team has ample coverage about it as one of the top women's basketball teams in New Zealand.National Womens Basketball Championships Finals Tip Off Thursday, Long build-up finally over for Gold Rush, Basketball: Otago crowned WBC champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The team played in the Women's Basketball Championship – a fairly unremarkable New Zealand domestic competition with no wiki page. Are you willing to demonstrate this team's notability by expanding the article? A general google search of "otago gold rush basketball" doesn't yield many results. That first article you linked for example is a copy and paste from Basketball New Zealand. The page is also a borderline Orphan. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. See coverage in the Otago Daily Times ([14], [15] [16] and the NZ Herald piece cited above (the second one by an actual reporter, not bylined by Basketball NZ). Contra the nominator, the page's near-orphan status is not relevant. Also, WP:NSPORT is the relevant SNG for sport teams, not WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm happy to concede but will anyone take the time to expand it, or will we let it sit in its current poor state where its providing no real value? DaHuzyBru (talk) 00:48, 17 December 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 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sussex Newspaper (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 failing to find any coverage of this online newspaper in reliable sources. I therefore don't believe it satisfies WP:NNEWSPAPER, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. While claims about it being the fastest growing (from the article) or the most popular (from their website) online newspaper in Sussex sound impresive my WP:BEFORE turned up no independent in depth coverage to corroborate. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, United Kingdom, and England. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot even find an about page, apparently able to submit own articles. IgelRM (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as totally unverifiable, entirely unnotable and highly misleading. As a lifelong Sussex resident who is familiar with the county's published and online newspapers, alarm bells were already ringing when I saw this nomination and the claims being made in the article. In reality it seems to be a vanity site with a mix of churnalism and trashy stories scraped from the web, with absolutely no Sussex focus at all, and is not covered by any reliable sources. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed with above - no indication of notability of this den of churnalism. ResonantDis_tortion 23:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Concur with the points raised above. In addition, the article reads as promotional and highly subjective. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 14 December 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!} 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Motorcycles (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 motorcycle manufacturer. WP:CORPTRIV mentions like this are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable company. There are no sources other than the mentions of the company in primary sources. Mekomo (talk) 14:46, 10 December 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 news channels in Pakistan#Current channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GTV Network (Pakistan) (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 local TV station. Lacks independent coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels: if the sources are judged insufficient for a dedicated page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 10 December 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 Grok (chatbot). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (text-to-image model) (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 that Aurora is independently notable of Grok. All coverage frames this as a feature of Grok. Should be merged back into that article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Grok (chatbot). After doing a little bit of research, Aurora seems to merely be a codename of the text-to-image model; its actual function is just an image generator within Grok and its name isn't mentioned. I don't think this warrants a seperate article and would do a lot better being merged with the main article about Grok. Beachweak (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not merely the codename; it's the actual name of the text-to-image model. Aurora is also coming to the xAI API in the coming weeks, so it's not just an image generator within Grok.

  You can read more about this in this blog post xAI just released, where they consistently refer to the model as Aurora and mention that it's coming to their API. Max1298 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom

Themoonisacheese (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: per nom Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Grok (chatbot). Not notable for its own article at this time. WP:NOPAGE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:54, 11 December 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!} 08:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxida (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 couldn't find any source actually confirming that this genus exists. In all likelihood, it is a misspelling of Hypoxidia, itself a junior synonym of Curculigo. The latter does have a species Curculigo rhizophylla (at one point classified as Hypoxidia rhizophylla), which is likely what the simultaneously created "Hypoxida rhizophylla" was intended to refer to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is too little information in the article too be sure (I don't have access to the cited book), but I suspect that User:Chaotic Enby is correct. In any case, even if the genus does exists there needs to be more to make a viable article. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes. Looks like a misquote to me. The book cited has hypoxidia.[17] Thincat (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-published misspelling; I suspect nom has it right. Also, move Hypoxida rhizophylla (without redirect, since not a published misspelling either) to Curculigo rhizophylla - might as well get an article started on that one, and add some more accessible sources (e.g. PoW). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 December 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 Glossary of motion picture terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer shot (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; sources for this are not apparent and if they were, this appears to be just a minor film technique. "Noddy" already covers use in news and interviews. There are currently no references. Nominating for AFD rather than boldly merging to see if there's any writing on buffer shots that I am missing. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) -- Dr Greg  talk  02:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They’re both editing techniques using insertion of material but their respective goals are opposite (variety/continuity), so merging is not necessary and might be confusing, don’t you think? -Mushy Yank. 05:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It’s covered in reliable sources so I cannot see why it should be merged into another page. -Mushy Yank. 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. While there have been several sources added, the entire article is a few sentences and could easily be merged into the article. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could, but why should it be merged? -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank The article is currently a WP:DICDEF. DICDEF articles are not allowed, so we usually handle content like this inside glossaries. The encyclopedia won't lose any of this content it will just be housed in a different spot to comply with DICDEF. The cats can even remain on the redirect page so we won't lose navigation there either. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per Dr. Greg. This is a very closely related idea and could easily be accommodated there. I'd go so far as to argue that a buffer shot is a particular case of a cutaway. WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here, and I think this merge target makes the most sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per the comment by Mushy Yank. Buffer shots have a different goal and merging would lead to confusion. Glossary of motion picture terms is the better target as I already indicated above.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the three related articles here are Buffer shot, Cutaway (filmmaking), and Nod shot. A nod shot is a kind of buffer shot which is a kind of cutaway. For example, see the first paragraph of Cutaway:

"The most common use of cutaway shots in dramatic films is to adjust the pace of the main action, to conceal the deletion of some unwanted part of the main shot, or to allow the joining of parts of two versions of that shot. For example, a scene may be improved by cutting a few frames out of an actor's pause; a brief view of a listener can help conceal the break. Or the actor may fumble some of his lines in a group shot; rather than discarding a good version of the shot, the director may just have the actor repeat the lines for a new shot, and cut to that alternate view when necessary."

Which basically describes a buffer shot. Commenters above have argued cutaways are mostly not meant for this, but according to the article itself, they often are. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is "a shot that interrupts the main action of a film or television program to take up a related subject or to depict action supposed to be going on at the same time as the main action" by Merriam Webster. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) given that the article content is already there, there just aren't any citations. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.@Mrfoogles, 35.139.154.158, Mushy Yank, Dr Greg A buffer shot is not a cutaway and a cutaway is not a buffer shot. They both use film splicing, but they are two different film editing ideas. I would support them being together in a larger article on film splicing, but not together under the name cutaway. Likewise nod shot could be included in the film splicing article.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @4meter4 can you clarify what the difference is? I and I assume most of the people here don't have a film editing background. Film splicing sounds the same as Cut (transition) on first glance but I'm going to assume those aren't necessarily the same. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore So a "buffer shot" is sort of the "Correction fluid" of film making. It's a way to fix a mistake on camera through cutting out an unusable image on film and replacing it with a usable one without having to record new audio or film. The mistake could be anything from an actor tripping, to a boom mic being caught on film, to a person on the film crew accidentally being caught in a shot. Rather than reshoot a scene, they will do what's called a "buffer shot" by splicing in other footage from within that scene, such as another character's reaction (but not necessarily that). The point is, buffer shots don't change the scene in any meaningful way. There is no change in location, and the intent of the scene is not altered, and no new audio is recorded. Its sole purpose is to hide/remove visual errors caught on film through film splicing.

A Cut (transition) is different than a "buffer shot". A cut is specifically the footage used to link or transition from one scene into the next. This is usually done by film splicing in stock footage but can be done through other techniques such as fadeaways. It serves a completely different purpose/function than a buffer shot. These are planned transitions and are not a means of fixing accidental problems within a scene.

A Cutaway (filmmaking) is a purposeful shot designed from the beginning to cut from one space/location abruptly to another within a scene. It's intentional from the outset (its in the script). It could be done for humorous juxtaposition/irony for example. It could also be done for something as simple as a phone conversation between two characters where one sees one person talking on the phone in one location and then they cutaway to the another person talking on their phone in a different location. It is not used as a transition and is not used to cover up a mistake within a scene because it was planned from the beginning. Like the others, it does use film splicing.

A "nod shot" or "reaction shot" is a particular kind of stock footage shot that can be used in several ways. It's a standard within news media, and sometimes is done on sitcoms and other character dialogue centered shows. It could be used to cover up a mistake, it which case its acting as a "buffer shot". But it could also be used to finish up a scene which has audio but no accompanying image (happens more often in TV news) which would make it a "filler shot", or it could be used within a transition which would make it a cut. This type of footage probably wouldn't be used in a cutaway because cutaway footage tends to be very specific and requires a carefully planned shoot that most stock footage could not achieve. The point is, that all of these terms are defined by their purpose/goal. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they all use film splicing. Hope this helps clarify. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Valuable information indeed! DesiMoore (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. Although the article is well-cited, it is clearly WP:DICDEF. Merging to the glossary will create the least confusion, since a buffer shot is neither a cutaway nor a nod shot.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between two different Merge target articles. Can we settle on the most appropriate one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms, of the two suggested merge targets. Glossaries are under-utilized here on Wikipedia, and merging to a glossary rather than a related term seems preferable here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 14 December 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.