User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Anabwani I of Bunyoro	21 days ago	3	6777	1707.57
Turkish Informatics Olympiad	14 days ago	0	4342	1452.74
The Fleeting Ends	14 days ago	1	4423	1414.05
Dumitru Găleșanu	14 days ago	1	3682	1392.42
List of career achievements by Stephen Curry	14 days ago	1	9469	1372.49
Miyu Takahashi	13 days ago	1	5287	1306.31
Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan	14 days ago	2	4411	1286.23
JOJ WAU	12 days ago	1	3535	1235.26
Nutan (Nepalese actor)	12 days ago	1	3535	1229.63
Mizuki Otake	13 days ago	2	3785	1216.4
Josiah Akinloye	13 days ago	2	3875	1212.06
Bouheida	11 days ago	1	2811	1182.49
UPEI Student Union	11 days ago	1	4810	1171.81
Markíza Dajto	12 days ago	2	4601	1156.97
Ulrich Lange	9 days ago	0	5317	1057.02
Zoë Paul	9 days ago	1	4014	1054.31
Ela Gawin	9 days ago	0	5419	1052.51
Siege of Badami (1786)	10 days ago	1	14901	1044.21
Tumor alopecia	10 days ago	1	6365	1039.79
American Silver Eagle mintage figures	10 days ago	2	3713	1018.44
Askew Saddlery Company	11 days ago	2	10916	1005.11
Harpal Dev Makwana	9 days ago	1	7120	998.81
Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan	10 days ago	2	8016	985.66
Embassy of Moldova, London	10 days ago	2	3405	972.86
HN R200	9 days ago	2	3827	948.36

Anabwani I of Bunyoro

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

This appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uganda. toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep most sources on the article are self-published, however per WP:MONARCH he is considered automatically notable as a sovereign ruler. Azarctic (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, the issue is, I'm not sure if he's even real (I haven't seen a mention of him predating the 2010s), and even if we count that particular newspaper article as reliable (which I'm not certain that it is), the only thing we can say is that he existed, which isn't enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
In general, the Daily Monitor holds a left-leaning editorial bias and is reasonably fact-based; however, they poorly source information. The articles does really need more reliable sources for verification which is why I made my vote a weak keep. Azarctic (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Dubious at best. Each source finds its way back to a self-published honours mill. Wikipedia is not here to boost the claims of unreferenced, unverifiable pedigrees. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I did a search, and there does seem to be quite a few sources on the topic, so that mostly rules being a hoax. And of coarse WP:MONARCH makes the topic notable. Lordseriouspig 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you link some of those sources? toweli (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources exist, add some to the article. Just saying sources exist and not providing any, does not improve the state that the article is in. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Userfy. He might have existed, but right now this page is borderline TNT. Can someone please adopt this article and fix it? Bearian (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Turkish Informatics Olympiad

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

Tagged uncited for 15 years and does not exist on Turkish Vikipedi. If it is notable maybe some competitors or former competitors could cite this? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For reference: I think relevant trwiki article is this: tr:Ulusal Bilim Olimpiyatları Tehonk (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I have linked Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There are propably enough sources. But in Turkish, unfortunatly. Luhanopi (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

All the sources in the Turkish article are Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to cite Turkish sources that would be great Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Fleeting Ends

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

Not seeing anything that would make this a pass under WP:BAND. No in depth reviews, charting records or significant awards or recognition. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not Sure': I updated existing references and added some additional ones. It looks like the band was active 2008-2015 and then again in 2018 with Vantine and others. For the reformed band in 2018, the references I found list different people than the article originally named (I changed the article to reflect what's in the sources). The originally named people are in pictures that are part of the article but I can't find any sources that link them directly to "The Fleeting Ends". There is coverage of this band in the local Philly outlets that cover indie bands, it's more limited outside - I see some newspaper articles that announced tour dates and the Popmatters magazine article about a release in 2018. I'd rather someone with more knowledge about WP:BAND weigh in. Nnev66 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are reliable sources here. In fact, NBC increases the notoriety of the article. Alon9393 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait--this? That's nothing but a video, with the video gone, from a local affiliate. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Drmies We are in a generation of rapid consumption, of TikTok, YouTube, the video is what is produced, I don't see why it can't be there, and the quotes are from the American national network NBC. Alon9393 (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The video is NOT there, and even if it were, it wouldn't mean a thing. "They appeared on TV" is not a claim to notability, certainly not if it's a local affiliate: no, it's not NBC, it's the Philadelphia affiliate, Channel 10--WCAU. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Dumitru Găleșanu

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

There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
weak keep: Some reviews/critical discussion in Romanian sources [1] and [2], might be more in Romanian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
One of the two links is to the introduction of his book, so not exactly impartial. 161.132.213.116 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the creator has been locked for UPE; this article therefore might need significant cleanup. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Stephen Curry

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

Similar to other articles in the Career achievements of basketball players category, this is a collection of indiscriminate trivia with trivial statistical cross sections sourced primarily to non-secondary sources such as the AI website StatsMuse and Basketball Reference. As such, this is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the most pertient info is already found in the main article. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Alot of what is in the article should go but there are sources out there that specifically discuss Curry's career achievements such as from Sky Sports and NBC Sports. Whether it is enough for a standalone article, I'll let others decide. Alvaldi (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Some relevant policies are WP:INDISCRIMINATE:
To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
WP:NOTSTATS:
Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.
The article lacks the context that those policies expect to put the collection of bullet items into perspective for the reader.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment The AI site StatMuse is cited almost 200 times on the page. Consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 400 § StatMuse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Statmuse is that the site is not reliable and the AI nature of the site amounts to WP:OR, as the editor enters queries to get results from a WP:PRIMARY source database. Per the WP:SECONDARY policy:
Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.
—Bagumba (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a recent related AfD on a Hall of Famer who transcends basketball that was closed as "delete".—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment After reviewing the page again, I went on to delete large chunks of trivial content that lacked merit and/or were unsubstantiated. All StatMuse references and any inferable content from sites such as ClutchPoints and Basketball Reference (database-searched content) have also been removed to retain credibility and avoid the violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Furthermore, franchise and college-based records have been tabulated to enhance readability. It is fair to say that the current version is far sleeker and concrete with credible citations (with the exception of a handful of records which I am in the process of finding the right sources for). As the page's latest version also shows, Curry has an extensive list of notable records and milestones. Incorporating them in one page seems like a more organised and logical approach to me. In addition, it is common knowledge that Curry, like Bryant and James, is generally considered an all-time great with a significant impact on the sport. However, the achievements pages of the latter-two (Bryant's and James') have a wide range of unverified content, particularly Bryant's, that still stand without any corrections being made. The notion of whether Curry warrants a standalone records page may not seem like a "no-brainer", but its closure seems unjustified if each factor in this comment is considered in totality.—Beemer03 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep Treating this on its individual merits and making no comparison with the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar discussion. On balance, this subject is a desirable and valid WP:SPINOFF; desirable because the corresponding section of the main Stephen Curry article is very long; and valid because I can find existing references which discuss his achievements and records in a standalone manner [3] [4]. Most comments above represent problems which can and should be solved by improvement, not deletion. Aspirex (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOTEVERYTHING is my biggest concern with this page:
Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
Then there is WP:NOTSTATS and the lack of commentary. Curry's impact on changing basketball by dominating as a smaller player with 3-point shooting is the bigger story. The slew of records feel secondary, and the niche ones that involves multiple conditions (e.g. "Oldest player in NBA history to average over 30 points per game through the first 10 games of a season") feel especially trivial. How many get historically mentioned years after the actual game? But with data and technology, these are available and oft-mentioned during and after a game. Beemer03 had been working to pare the cruft from the page. I think it will take some time to make the necessary editorial decisions on what should be on this page, and then decide if the remaining content is worthy of a standalone page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: then perhaps draftify is the way to go for now? And maybe the page can be restored to mainspace if there's consensus at a relevant centralized venue like WT:NBA. Left guide (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
A few points at WP:DRAFTNO suggest not draftifying. I don't see any gross policy violations that compel me to !vote to draftify. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus through this whole process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Miyu Takahashi

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I found this which is fairly in-depth. There's also this, this, and some other routine coverage. Likely not enough to meet WP:NBASIC but I would not be surprised if there was more coverage out there. I just don't know where to look or how to read Japanese. C F A 💬 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Mizuki Otake have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher. More source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. NBAD is irrelevant when NSPORT itself is not met. The Hochi link does seem to cover her playing beyond the one tournament, but it is not enough to overcome the stricter SIGCOV requirements in place for high school-age athletes (which she was at the time). Draftifying might give people a bit more time to find more recent sources. The other two links identified above are pretty routine tournament recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them.

If you disagree with WP:NBAD, then think it would be better to get a consensus to change the guideline itself instead of arguing for selective circumvention. DCsansei (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Workers Vanguard Party of Kurdistan

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

Does not seem to be notable. Tagged unsourced for over a decade and the Kurdish article has no sources either. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Middle East. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep - as usual, articles shouldn't be tagged for AfD based on the lack of references in the article at present, but based on the availability of potential sources for expansion. A quick google books search reveals plenty of material that could be used, based on both Kurdish and Turkish versions of the name, which could be used for sourcing and expansion before bringing the article to AfD process. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, you might want to note wordings like "We will now briefly go through the expressions employed about the 'armed struggle' by the three prinicipal groups which had remarkably drawn more popular support among the Kurds of Turkey than the PKK in the late 1970s. The Vanguard Workers Party of Kurdistan (PPKK ..." (Turkey's Kurds: A Theoretical Analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan, my emphasis) --Soman (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify It should not be in mainspace. Ben Azura (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep – Reliable sources exist. Dratifying an old article is a waste of time. Yue🌙 04:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to TV JOJ. ✗plicit 00:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

JOJ WAU

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

Probably not notable. I could only find this: [5], [6], [7]. This probably does not constitute significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to TV JOJ. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with redirecting. Even though these are sister channels, TV JOJ is the primary one, and its article provides some information that may be of interest to ones looking up JOJ WAU. Janhrach (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not sure about the merits of the proposed redirect as the article lists that target page (TV JOJ) as the sister station to this one. Any additional thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Nutan (Nepalese actor)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nutan (actor)

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

Deleted in January as Nutan (actor). Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As the person who accepted this article, initially I thought he might meet the general notability guideline, but now looking back, yeah, he doesn't. Delete. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Search about him on Google, YouTube and other websites. I think he meets the general notability guideline. Most of his articles are in Nepalese language, so you might be thinking that way. Thanks! 111.119.49.66 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion, so relisting to come to clearer consensus to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Miyu Takahashi have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. NBAD is subordinate to the higher requirements of NSPORT, including SPORTCRIT, which demands an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Routine event recaps don't count towards notability, and we don't have evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT through any other coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them. DCsansei (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Bouheida

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

I couldn't find sources to add verifying this information. Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Is this Bouhdida? Geschichte (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Bouhdida Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

UPEI Student Union

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

While UPEI is notable, the union does not inherit that notability. This serves as a promo piece. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The union receives very regular coverage from the CBC:

And from, as far as I can tell, at least one other outlet:

https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/lifestyles/20-questions-with-upei-student-union-president-camille-mady-100895015/

So maybe it can still go in UPEI, but you can’t dismiss this out of hand. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge - to the university. The secondary sources both on the article and listed here, are transactional in nature, rather than the detailed sources that are required to show notability. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. So, is what being suggested by one editor a Merge to University of Prince Edward Island? It helps if you provide a link to the target article as there might be several articles that exist on the same overall subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Markíza Dajto

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

I previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep as a WP:SPLITLIST of Markiza, a major Slovak network.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).

Also, quoting from WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." Janhrach (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ulrich Lange

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

Only source is a self-published website anyone can edit. It's certainly possible that this could be a notable topic, although I was unable to locate entries in standard music reference works that cover people like this such as the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians or Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Both foreign language wiki articles are built off of the same source. A reasonable WP:ATD could be redirecting this to Thomaskantor. 4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep, I found mentions of him in some books:

Bach's Famous Choir, The Saint Thomas School in Leipzig, 1212-1804, devotes about a paragraph to Lange on page 22, where it's mentioned that he composed St Mark Passion which was performed into the 17th century

The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the End of the 16th Century, gives another paragraph to the subject on page 276 Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the second source is only available in snippet view, so it is hard to judge the depth of coverage. The first source largely covers his contributions as Thomaskantor which could easily be used to expand that article. I'm still not convinced a separate article is needed on this person. It's borderline.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot from that second book. More digging found a german language source from 1920 published by the University of Illinois; Geschichte der deutschen Musik von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des Dreissigjährigen Krieges which on page 411 discusses Lange. Monatschrift für Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst mentions him on page 184 as well.

Meister der Renaissancemusik an der Viadrina, Quellenbeiträge zur Geisteskultur des Nordosten Deutschlands vor dem Dreissigjährigen Kriege seems to have some info on Lange (p 78) prior to being Thomaskantor, but is just a snippet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment same source [8] as used in my discussion for the Otto AfD (right above this one)... I'm more clear about Otto's deletion discussion than this one, I'm not sure if this person is notable or not. Otto has a lack of sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Zoë Paul

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, South Africa, and Greece. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Found some additional WP:RS coverage of Paul: Frieze magazine, The Design Edit, Vice (referenced in the article but needs to be archived), StudioInternational (referenced above)

CaptainAngus (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, please provide a review of sources and any improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - she meets GNG based on reviews in Artforum, Frieze, and Studio International; she's produced a window installation at MoMA. It is quite early in her career, and she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, but after a BEFORE search I think that there's enough significant coverage to support an article based on the general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Ela Gawin

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

The article is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly unreliable, being as follows:

[9] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed at the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
[10] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[11] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[12] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[13] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article doesn't disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
[14] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
[15] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
[16] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
[17] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
[18] o2.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can show that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Badami (1786)

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

Y. N. Deodhar is not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are not a historian and are thus an unreliable source. Google scholar wields no results; [19]

Sanish Nandakumar is not a historian, and has a B.S in economics, they are in no way scholarship, especially only having made one book. - No results on google scholar: [20]

This page is poorly created with a spam link of sources in each paragraph.

The other sources provide little but a passing mention. [21] Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep

Y.N. Deodhar is a M.A. and also a PHD in history which is mentioned in the source used in the article itself. [22] and Another source calls Y. N. Deodhar an “veteran historian” [23]. Also your search results doesn't even mentions the name of "Y. N. Deodhar".

Y. N. Deodhar's book [24] along with these two reliable sources [25] (page no 52-53), [26] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Y.N Deodhar is not cited as having a PHD in history, he's not even on google scholars, which is what you pointed out for me by saying "your search results doesn't mention the name", yes, that's the point, he's not a scholar cited on google scholars.

And I'm sorry but "Venkatesh Rangan" is not a historian, he's an author. [27]

Deodhar, already unreliable as aforementioned, his book provides little insight. The two other sources you cited, are already responded towards, Govind is not a historian. Noorullah (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Move on from Google Scholars. I'm not gonna talk about Y. N. Deodhar again because I've already provided an source which literally calls Y. N. Deodhar an “Veteran historian”.

Although Venkatesh Rangan mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian, I've no idea that why does it matter that Venkatesh Rangan is a historian or not because Venkatesh Rangan's book isn't even used anywhere in the article that's totally irrelevant in the AfD (WP:AADP).

Even the Uttarakhand Open University here [28] (page no 239) mentions Y. N. Deodhar as a historian.

Govind Sakharam Sardesai is a famous historian,[29] there is literally a Wikipedia article on him (Govind Sakharam Sardesai) which also calls him a historian. GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 10:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The book written by Govind is outdated per WP:RAJ(1946). Couldn’t find much info about Deodhar other than the links you’ve showed. I guess he’s okay based on what I’m reading, but if that’s the only reliable source that mentions this, then I’m not sure it requires its own separate article.

“Consequent upon the capture of Badami, the strong fort of Bhadur Band capitulated to the Marathas and Haripant proceeded to capture copal, another fort about four miles distant.” There’s only one line that mentions this battle in Deodhars book, and there are no other details other than “it was captured”. This tells me that this event lacks Wikipedia:Notability, which means it doesn’t warrant its own article if it’s based on one line from a book. The other sources don’t seem reliable or fall under WP:RAJ. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep:

As per explanation given by @GroovyGrinster the article is notable and sources provided are WP:RS giving significant coverage of this Siege even if we don't consider YN Deodhar the other two i.e Sen, Sailendra Nath [30] (page no 52-53) and Sardesai Govind Sakaram [31] (page no 178-179) clearly gives significant coverage to the event.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Govind is WP:RAJ. His book was written in 1946. Which makes it outdated. Deodhar makes a small mention of Badami being captured but doesn’t mention a siege or any other details beyond that. As I’ve mentioned before, this event lacks notability, and I already pointed out many of the issues within this article. Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete:

Not convinced that this needs its own article. Only reliable source here is from Deodhar and it’s one line about it being captured, with no other extra details or information(see context above). In fact it doesn’t even mention a siege, only that the town was captured. This article lacks Wikipedia:Notability. Govinds book appears to fall under WP:RAJ which makes it an unsuitable addition for any article. The other sources don’t appear to be reliable either per noorullah. One throwaway line/passing mention of this event doesn’t warrant a separate article.

Edit: I’m beginning to think that WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is at play here. How did the user who wrote this article get all this information from one line in Deodhars book? I don’t see how he got the numbers in the info box, nor how he managed to fill an entire article based on a throwaway line. Non of the information in the body for example seem to directly relate to the capture of Badami. There’s no mention of any of that in regards to Deodhars book. So again, there’s barely any information about the CAPTURE(not siege) of Badami in the sources provided. Most of this article employs original research and synth. Even the title is OR, there was no battle. Majority of the information here is falsified. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The Capture/Siege of Badami is given significant coverage in these two sources [32] (page no- 53-54), [33] (page no- 178-179). This source mentions this conflict as Siege of Badami in the page number 52 [34].

WP:RAJ doesn't apply to Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book because it only applies to caste related stuff. Hence Govind Sakharam Sardesai's Book is a WP:RS, Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay. And All of the sources pass WP:RS, Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable? GroovyGrinster^{Talk With Me} 14:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see why you’d assume that it only applies to caste related topics but that’s not the case. This has been discussed many times in the past especially on RSN, but typically, all sources that fall under the raj era are not seen as reliable. While the essay written by sitush focuses on caste, most of the same issues mentioned there apply to all raj era historians.

And btw, Govind was already picked apart in RSN for the same reasons I mentioned(WP:RAJ), it’s an outdated source.

“Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reliability of Govind Sakharam Sardesai

“The sources I have seen suggest that it was first published in 1928, which makes it a bit dated, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the source though. “

“I see to recall being informed that prior discussions has found any source published under the Raj was automatically not an RS”

Anything that was written during the raj era is outdated and thus not RS. Sitush can clarify this further for you if you’d like to ask him, as he’s already discussed this detail many times in the past.

“Also WP:RAJ isn't a policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, it's only an Essay”

It’s an essay written by one of the most prolific writers of Indian historical topics on Wikipedia. Sitush is a content expert. And this is something that has generally been accepted by the community. Raj era sources are typically almost always viable for removal.

Furthermore, the point of the essay was to let the readers know that RAJ era sources are unreliable and outdated. So even if this isn’t a policy(which is irrelevant, this issue was discussed multiple times), WP:RS still exists. We are looking for high quality sources on wikipedia, not outdated work from the raj era. And as I’ve clarified, Govinds work has already been picked apart by RSN.

“Can you explain that how according to you they aren't reliable”

well I should clarify what I actually meant. look at this source for example https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.69209/page/n56/mode/1up

it actually doesn’t seem unreliable based on what I’ve read, so this source is fine but where is the siege of Badami mentioned? I can’t find the quote in the page numbers cited. It seems that this was likely mistakenly added in. So we can’t use this source for information it doesn’t even have. Now as for the final source

https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.7298/mode/1up

There is no page number cited so I can’t even find where it mentions Badami. Furthermore I can’t find any info about the authors credentials, but even if he was reliable, where has he written about the the siege of Badami?

it seems to me that out of all these sources, only one of them mentions anything about Badami. Not that there was a siege mind you. Deodhar makes a passing mention of the town being captured and that’s it. There is no other details. So again, why is this a separate article? After checking all the sources, I realized this article is far more problematic than initially anticipated. The text doesn’t even correspond with what’s written in the sources cited. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment by one of our more experienced editors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Someguywhosbored. Full of unverifiable and unreliable claims. Mccapra (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Tumor alopecia

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

There is only one source that talks about tumor alopecia and it only includes one small paragraph on the topic:

"Tumor alopecia refers to halr loss in the immediate vicinity of either benlgn or malignant tumors of the scalp. Synngomas, nerve sheath myxomas, and steatocystoma multiplex are benign tumors that may be lim~ted to the scalp and cause alopecia. Alopecia neoplastica 1s the designation glven to halr loss from metastatic tumors, most often from breast or renal carcinoma."^[1]

^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

The source provided is a tertiary source I believe so this doesn't have any secondary sources covering it. Also this page reads like a dictionary definition. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, a medical school textbook (which is what's cited there) is generally considered an ideal source in MEDRS terms.

I also wonder whether you're focusing too closely on the exact name given in that one source, when the subject (i.e., hair loss in the immediate vicinity of either benign or malignant tumors of the scalp) might have other names. One of the two sources in ==Further reading== on that page talks about "neoplasm-related alopecia" and the other is about "Alopecia due to cancer". This review calls it "Hair loss in neoplastic conditions".

It would be undesirable to delete an article about a whole subject if what it really needs is to WP:MOVE it to a different title and add some more content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I read over general notability guidelines and saw secondary sources and I think I may have focused too much on that. I was the one that added the further reading sources in an earlier search for some material on the topic. While the original source does distinguish tumor alopecia from Alopecia neoplastica would it be appropriate to merge the pages? I was able to expand the page Alopecia neoplastica a bit. Or possibly mention tumor alopecia on the page Alopecia and redirect there? I will search for literature regarding tumor related alopecia that’s not referred to by that name. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Alopecia, or perhaps move to Cancer-related hair loss and expand further? There doesn't seem to be enough to work with here to write a standalone article, and I don't think Alopecia neoplastica and Tumor alopecia need to be separate articles, but this topic definitely warrants mentioning somewhere. I think a standalone article on cancer-related hair loss (incorporating hair loss from both the disease itself and from treatments) could work, with a mention of non-cancerous tumor-induced hair loss in the main alopecia article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is support here for a Merge but not agreement yet on the Merge target article. There has to be consensus on that before this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus on what to do here. What does the nominator think about a possible Merge or Redirect and to what target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

American Silver Eagle mintage figures

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTSTATS. It is not clear why we have these statistics. Not all facts make good encyclopedia articles, no attempt is made to explain why these figures are of enough importance to give them a separate page. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep - is cite-able and notable as world bullion repository currency. -MJ (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Merge back into American Silver Eagle - This article was WP:BOLDly split without discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. We have arguments to Delete, Merge and Keep. We need to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Askew Saddlery Company

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

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep meets NCORP. Significant coverage: Kansas City Journal (also [35]), Kansas City Times (also [36]), Implement Dealers Bulletin, The Atchison Daily Champion. Was apparently involved in a high-profile labour dispute in the late 1800s. 558 results on newspapers.com alone. 5 pages of results on Google books. There is a paragraph of coverage from 2021 here. C F A 💬 02:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the sources mentioned above don't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*, failing CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The company was dismantled in the late 1910s. We can't seriously expect modern-day levels of anti-spam sourcing. I would argue the first two sources I provided do offer significant coverage of the company itself and are entirely independent. There is more than enough secondary coverage to write a solid C-class article with the sources I provided, and, as I mentioned, there is a lot more out there. C F A 💬 14:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Our guidelines provide us with a mechanism to assist in determining whether a company was notable and the criteria are rooted in sourcing.

Your arguments are that on the one hand, we can't expect adequate sourcing from that period of time (over 100 years ago) - but this is the mechanism which the community has decided is best to determine notability. Otherwise it might as well be an opinion where all it takes it that someone says they believe it is notable and therefore deserves an article.

Your better argument is that you've provided two sources that offer "significant coverage" of the *company* itself and are entirely independent. The first source is from the Kansas City Journal, Sept 20 1925. In my opinion, it reads very much like a promo piece, with the company celebrating 60 years in business. The vast majority of the article focuses on the founders. You might argue that back in those days, companies were often or not associated closely with real people (not faceless corporations) and so writing about the illustrious lives, trials and tribulations of the founders was conflated with writing about the company - but we still see this sort of thing today too. Celebrities setting up companies to sell their coffee or fashion accessories and usually the coverage is focused on the celeb and not the company. Not many of those companies meet the criteria for notability either because the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP. But whatever about the merits or otherwise of the first source, none of the other sources meet the criteria. The company gets a mere mention-in-passing in second source in the same publication ("Admits Forgery Attempts").

The Kansas City Times from 7th Nov 1899 concerns the company filing a petition for an injunction, it does not provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.

If there are other good sources out there that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, I might reconsider my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the current discussion point between HK and CFA, ideally with some other voices to establish a consensus on that issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the sources but I don't see NCORP as being intended to apply to companies long defunct. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I had a dig through archive.org and there doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth coverage from the time. There's half a column about the company as part of the (extremely uncritical) article about founder Frank Askew in the 1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, and there's a a short front-page article in the Lincoln Star about the company merging with Harpham Bros in 1928. There are otherwise several passing mentions in biographies of people who worked for them - often with a comment that Askew were the largest saddlery business in Kansas City - and many routine reports of court cases, trade union matters and so on. It feels like they may have been a notable concern at the time, but I'd agree that the sourcing is extremely weak by modern standards. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCORP states: 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.' Seems to suggest to me that strict NCORP criteria is not required and what should be considered is GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Harpal Dev Makwana

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

This article is part of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala dynasty and Jhala (clan) created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes someone who is almost certainly a legendary figure and launders the sources to present him as a historical person. He may have been, but the sources do not indicate that:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as heir and descendent of Harpal Dev. It includes fantastic stories from the vahi (legendary geneaologies of high-caste Indian families), including Harpal Dev/Harpaldev defeating a ghost in battle and marrying a goddess, Shak-Ti who supernaturally rescues their children from an elephant.
Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
A Life with Wildlife: From Princely India to the Present is also by a purported descendant of Harpal Dev and retails the same fantastic stories, but at least presents them as legend.
Harpal Dev appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in several government gazetteers, including some cited in this article]
Popular Culture in a Globalised India is cited for a factual biographical claim, but it only discusses Harpal Dev in the context of a fictional stage play.
The Rajputs of Saurashtra discusses the Jhala Rajputs but says of the Harpal Dev story, "Bardic tales about their migrations from the Himalayan region to Sindh seem to contain little truth."
The article's sources include a few other trivial mentions, including a Who's Who that retails a descendant's claim of descent from Harpal Dev

Bottom line: What WP:SIGCOV we have on Harpal Dev is legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish him as a historical figure. I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, but with such a compromised article I recommend WP:TNT instead of trying to battle an army of socks claiming legendary stories are real. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Reviewed all sources and I agree with the nominator's analysis of the page snd sources. Some sources just briefly mention about Legends and tales of the subject and some other sources I do find unreliable WP:RAJ. There is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject and the role in history to be considered notable and to warrant a page on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [37]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [38]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [39] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [40]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [41] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [42] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.

Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [43]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Can you please provide a link to any previous AFDs on this article subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment no evidence has been presented in this discussion to suggest the subject meets WP:NBOOK so I still favour a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment for context here is the past AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to make this easy, here is the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (book). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Embassy of Moldova, London

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

Article merely confirms it exists plus a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Like many of these embassy articles created at a time with less stringent enforcement of notability requirements, this fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Merge and) Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London which contains all the encyclopaedic information about the embassy. The list of ambassadors should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate target but I haven't immediately found one. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

HN R200

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

Very small company that only produced three examples of a car. No evidence of significant notability, not everything belongs on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG, although I don't speak Czech and can't speak to the quality of the multiple sources in the article. In some cases, a car like this would be covered in the article for its manufacturer instead of having a separate one, but Hoffmann & Novague does not have an article. It's unclear if the three examples that were built by 2019 are all that will be made, or if production continued beyond that point. --Sable232 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep - while rather obscure, it appears to pass muster for general notability. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as these are Weak Keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

[n378-1] James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; Elston, Dirk M.; Odom, Richard B. (2006). Andrews' diseases of the skin: clinical dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier. p. 762. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. OCLC 62736861.

[1]