Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

10 June 2023

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 09	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

NECOBELAC Project[edit]

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

The whole article is written like a project proposal overview, a piece for advertising purposes WP:NOTPROMO. Fails considerably on WP:GNG, only references of WP:PRIMARY, no coverage from reliable sources. Chiserc (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Ecuador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal, United Kingdom, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ERTICO[edit]

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

The whole article is full of buzzwords, nothing to push, probably, beyond some basic WP:GNG. While the organization has developed partnerships with other European organizations and has sponsored some international events, there is a lack of WP:ORGCRITE. Most available sources are not independent and not with much depth of coverage. Chiserc (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Chiserc (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete mostly per nom and WP:PRIMARY, as there appears to be a lack of sources proving this subject's notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Reșița[edit]

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

Not notable. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lee Wells[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article includes very few information and nothing to justify WP:ARTIST. Having done a WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find anything that had significant coverage. Chiserc (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warm (The Lettermen album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helen Keller Services for the Blind[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. I can't find any sources on Google; granted, it might be possible that if you live closer to the organization, sources would be easier to find. A couple of sources have been added, but they are, at best, of questionable independence. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of schools in Sejong City[edit]

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

I'm not seeing why we need an exhaustive list of schools for this city. The topic seems to be a violation of WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Also this policy discourages simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopaedic merit. List also fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV about this group of schools as a group. The local government website for Sejong is not an acceptable source as it's clearly not independent of the subject. This article only seems to have two notable schools (to be honest, even those two schools might be non-notable) so the list is not a useful index. Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Riobamba among many others. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools explains why we have such exhaustive lists: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to [...] the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." The local website of Sejong is an acceptable source to prove the school exists, and South Korean municipal websites document very well which schools exist in the country. Now does this mean the school has notability? No. The solution would be to redirect the school name to Sejong City. However this then requires the article "Sejong City" to carry the name of the school (so the redirect can exist). However if there are a large number of schools, a daughter article "List of schools in Sejong City" would be created to retain the information.
Whether to keep this list or not depends on how many schools Sejong City has. Can the city article comfortably keep the list of schools, or does it need a separate article? I've listed schools for Japanese municipalities and found ways to compress the lists using "div col", so I think I might be able to compress the lists of schools in the article Sejong City
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the logic of those redirects being created as an alternative to an article although I do note that a lot of recent similar AfDs to this one have concluded in 'delete' which means that the consensus might be changing. My other concern is that I would still say that NOTDIR applies to a list of non-notable schools and I'm struggling to see why we find a directory list of schools acceptable, whether that be as part of the city article or as its own article, yet find directory lists of just about everything else to be unacceptable. I mean it wasn't that long ago that secondary schools were presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone article without exception so maybe this needs looking at from scratch as it seems contradictory. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One aspect is that many users wanted Wikipedia to function as a gazeteer of some sort noting major geographic sites, of which schools (especially government-operated schools) are one of them. As all incorporated municipalities are to have articles, there is an expectation of knowing about their respectively major functional sites like libraries, post offices, fire stations, and schools (especially government-run schools). Now, I notice in one of the AFDs the users wanted the schools being "discussed as a group or set in multiple, reliable secondary sources". I can check with South Korean editors if there are sources about the development of schools in Sejong City (which is a planned city set to be the administrative heart of South Korea). WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of secondary schools of Rupandehi district[edit]

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

I am struggling to see how this isn't a violation of WP:NOTDIR as it is literally a directory of every single secondary school in just one out of the 77 districts of Nepal and, if that isn't enough, I'm not seeing WP:LISTN being met either as there is a lack of significant, independent coverage of this particular grouping. I can't find anything to suggest that the secondary schools in this district are a distinctive enough phenomenon to require an exhaustive list of every single one of them. The list itself doesn't seem to meet any of the three purposes listed under WP:LISTPURP either. Similar deletions have taken place with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Gombe State and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Venezuela, a list of schools in an entire country rather than just a small district. In my view, List of schools in Nepal is sufficient and we shouldn't be encouraging people to do directory lists for each of the 77 districts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walt Nauta[edit]

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

This probably needs a broader discussion.

This may warrant an article in the future, but as of now, we have an article on a valet who is only known to the public because he was charged a few days ago. He hasn't and may not be convicted. We're getting into "do no harm" territory as far as BLP, which is fairly sacred. If it helps, I can throw in some other letters like WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME.

If we have an infobox that says "Known for: being associated with someone" we're on shaky ground. GMG ^talk 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As of today, Nauta is the co-defendant of the first former president of the United States to be charged with a federal crime. That's a major role in a major event in the history of the United States. His role in this event is well documented.

Perhaps in the near future he will be a witness for the prosecution instead of a co-defendant, but that won't lessen his significance at all.

I can't see any way in which he will not have a major, well-documented role in a major event in the history of the United States. Pha telegrapher (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said. I agree: Keep. (An analogous article: Rose Mary Woods.) Left Central (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. I forgot to include my vote: Keep. (Though it's probably pretty obvious.) Pha telegrapher (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This meets the “significant coverage in reliable sources” test (and quite easily, too). Subject has been covered over a series of months, and then of course a large number of reliable sources after the indictment, including those that go into detail on his biography/career. Many similar people, famous and infamous, also have significant coverage, and this biographies: List of personal aides to the president of the United States lists them. Neutrality^talk 14:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with

pha telegrapher. Conor13 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KeepThe subject received front-page coverage on the Washington Post of June 19, 2023. Among color photos, the fifth sentence there reads: "And, as a result, Nauta will now share a page in history books ... with the nation's 45th president". If mere "association" isn't valid reason for inclusion, why leave the entry for Morton Sobell? (Extreme analogy. Or is it?) Johannes der Taucher (talk)
Keep You cited WP:BLP1E, which says we should not have an article when each of three conditions is met:
- 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Clearly, this is met.
- 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. This is also met.
- 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. This one is not met. The event is significant, we have numerous articles on this (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Smith special counsel investigation, Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents etc.) and his role in it was substantial and well documented.
You say you can "throw in some other letters". Let's also look at WP:CRIMINAL: the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies
- 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[10] or I guess the victim of this crime is the U.S. as a whole, so this doesn't fit.
- 2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Yeah Donald Trump is alleged to have stored classified secrets in a bathroom and a ballroom stage, and Nauta is alleged to have helped move the boxes and apparently lied to the FBI in the process. The motivation for the crime and the execution of the crime are unusual, and this has become a well-documented historical event that will get more documentation as we get to a trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person...Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
    I'm not sure I expect this will actually be deleted, because everything that touches Trump gets seven articles and four sidebar templates. But we're not supposed to be making articles based on what sources we feel will exist in the future, and we're supposed to be exercising the utmost caution with living people, especially living people who are only known for being connected with a crime for which they have not been convicted. GMG ^talk 16:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There will be more coverage in the future, but there's plenty of coverage on his role in this right now. And making sure we presume innocence until proven guilty is an issue to maintain within the article, not with deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep he's clearly notable now after being co-charged with Trump for being in violation of the Espionage Act. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: As discussed on the article's talk page and should have been read WP:BEFORE starting this AFD, This person clearly and completely fails qualification #3 of WP:BLP1E. All 3 must be met for WP:BLP1E to apply.

Nothing in the article goes against WP:SUSPECT either. This is about as high-profile of an indictment as could be. No privacy is being violated in the article. It's well sourced and just lays out his biography which has been widely reported over a period of months and it states what is in the highly public indictment. The Helderman article was published 3 months ago.

FWIW, WP:CRIMINAL does not apply as this person has not been convicted. He is presumed innocent. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I was going to vote delete for WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL, but @Muboshgu's analysis convinced me to vote keep. I'm still a little worried it's WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep No matter the outcome of the trial, this man's name and the association with this trial will make him part of history, like John Dean and John Ehrlichman were to the Watergate Scandal. Msjayhawk (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Significant coverage and, as per above, doesn't meet point three on WP:BLP1E. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Starting now and increasingly as the trial progresses and decades into the future, people will still want to know who this person was and how and why he was involved with our first presidential criminal indictment. His lack of notoriety but role potentially facilitating the president to commit crimes is precisely why we need a curated article on him. He is now a public figure, like it or not. He is now and will always be noteworthy even if either/both are found not guilty or plead out in the future because Trump and his name will be tied together and the first thing I did reading the indictment today was look up the article on Wikipedia and thank goodness you hadn't deleted it yet. People charged with espionage charges potentially putting the entire country at risk are definitely noteworthy now and historically - like Snowden, for example. 209.37.78.233 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sewa Sadan English Boarding School[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools should meet either WP:NORG or WP:GNG but this institution doesn't seem to meet either. Mero Sewa is written in a promotional tone and doesn't appear to be WP:RS nor is the depth substantial enough. Jimdofree also doesn't seem to be independent of the subject as it asks for financial contributions to help rebuild the school towards the end of the text. I found no decent sources in Nepali either (सेवा सदन अंग्रेजी बोर्डिङ स्कूल) not that we would expect any for an English medium school. Article created by an WP:SPA. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Shah Faiz Public School[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 12 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janice Tessa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. BookishReader (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Insight 3 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fazaia Degree College, Faisal[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Continously being reverted by IPs. BookishReader (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diva Magazine (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Coverage in mostly in unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Fashion, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep - Its really hard to find coverage for a media in other media. But the title of Pakistan Today: Mahira Khan, Hamza Ali Abbasi sizzle on DIVA Magazine cover and the line in The Nation: Khan was earlier this month recognized as the 2020’s Best Actor for both television and web series by Diva Magazine Pakistan ... suggest the magazine is somewhat notable. Also some Urdu sources mention the magazine in a similar way: Urdu News, Daily Pakistan, Dawn TV news. Insight 3 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with the rationale above. All of the given sources provide minimal coverage. WP:GNG says that we need significant coverage. No coverage about magazine's history, production, etc.. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited[edit]

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

WP:ORGCRITE states that, A notable company should follow WP:GNG, but this company's page doesn't meet this criterion. Deletion recommended. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Of the three references, 2 fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:SIRS. The other one is a 404. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hakim Arif[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG, ACADEMIC, or BIO. Promotional writing and insignificant coverage. — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palau–Serbia relations[edit]

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

This is another bilateral relations article that doesn't actually describe much of that - there is no significant coverage, only some statements by politicians, and that does not warrant a standalone article. I stumbled upon this just like the Equatorial Guinea Kosovo relations article, this sounds equivalently silly. --Joy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kosovo, Serbia, and Oceania. Joy (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: It may seem silly at first to you but it seems to me the article is referencing issues further from the mere fact that some nominal formal relations exist. The issues already addressed include bilateral state visit by Palau president to Serbia, potentially controversial issue of de-recognition of Kosovo as well as climate change effects on international relations.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (part 2): After expanding the article with further 18 references, many of which with in depth coverage I believe that comparison with Equatorial Guinea–Kosovo relations is inadequate one and probably even a false balanced approach. It would in fact be much more similar to the Georgia–Kiribati relations (maybe even Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations or Abkhazia–Tuvalu relations) case showing how in a globalized world some important links and relations (based on specific interest) between far away peripheral and semi-peripheral countries may develop.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying that the countries "collaborate" through an embassy in Tokio is just adding to the meaninglessness of this article. A blurb on the ministry of foreign affairs website does not constitute significant coverage of this "collaboration", most obviously because it's not a secondary source nor is it independent from the article subject. Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a globalized world, people write a lot of misguided encyclopedia articles and essentially waste volunteer time and effort. --Joy (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I understand that you may have a strong opinion that this is some silly and needless topic but once you stop laughing maybe take a look at other references in this article as well (the one you selected in no random way is obviously not independent but is neither stating anything controversial or analytical). Some of them are in depth independent sources which should be evaluated without strong preconceptions. That is all I expect and I believe people who get involved will be willing to do exactly that. As for waste of time, nominating notable topics for deletion can also be interpreted as a waste of time and this topic looks notable to me. But let the community decide. Cheers!--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which ones are in depth? Most of the reference section seems to be news coverage, at least I didn't notice much else. I combed through and saw nspm.rs which sounded like it could be an in-depth journal, but the article linked is from their 'chronicle' section and it seems to basically repeat a short press release. There's a handful of sources that are referenced more than once, an ABC article that quotes two academics from Macquarie University to explain, and an RTS article that seems to explicitly just carry a Tanjug wire article. This isn't about preconceptions, it's about the spirit and letter of WP:V. If the preponderance of coverage is about practically nothing, there's practically no reason to have an encyclopedia article about it. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's about a small Pacific island nation with 4-5 embassies in total around the world which since 2018 managed to have two official heads of states meetings (Belgrade and New York), multiple high officials meetings (Belgrade, New York, Palau), clearly defined areas of interest in cooperation (climate, Kosovo), certain interest by USA and Russia in this relations, and bilateral agreements already signed or announced. There is also some precedence with certain role Yugoslavia played in UN's decolonisation efforts. All in all, this may be the best covered article on Palau's bilateral relations and I do believe that despite how small that state is their bilateral relations may be notable. Also, each of this requires significantly larger efforts by Palauan diplomacy to achieve than it would for any major state so even some simple meeting is hardly business as usual. Everything listed is properly referenced in multiple independent media sources (some of them with very sensationalist titles such as No smaller country no bigger friends) from Serbia and other countries. There is obvious media interest in this specific relations due to its linkage to Kosovo issue. It may seem to you equal to nonexistent relations between Kosovo and Equatorial Guinea but in reality it is not. It is also very much different than some hypothetical Serbia–Tonga relations since in this case both sides showed clear commitment to their cooperation (I shall not say collaboration I guess).--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Despite the commendable effort to expand the article, there just isn't WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Yes the article cites some sources that mention state visits and the like, but there's nothing that actually covers the topic of Palau–Serbia relations in any sort of depth. Yilloslime (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: there are multiple independent sources which I quoted in the article doing exactly what. Some of them addressing explicitly the beginning of bilateral relations for example. Also, sources dealing with bilateral meetings between the two countries are certainly a part of the topic. I would recommend everyone else to take a look at the reference list before assuming that the statement above is correct.--MirkoS18 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (part 2): also, since there is concern over the article currently under discussion should we probably also nominate most of the other articles in the Template:Foreign relations of Palau to check their inclusion? I think it would be shame to delete them all but at least it would tell us something about our policies if that would be the result. Personally, I would not like to do it myself at this time to avoid any disruption of the current procedure yet I am of course very much interested in equal treatment of topics on which I worked/am interested in to any other topic in this category.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: meets WP:HEY now, in my opinion. I think it's reasonable that articles on bilateral relations consist mostly of news coverage because they are supposed to cover various events i.e. relations between the two countries. Despite establishing relations four and a quarter years ago, news coverage seems WP:SUSTAINED enough, comes from several notable newspapers independent of the subject, nearly all are entirely dedicated to Serbia and Palau (i.e. WP:SIGCOV). 5~6 of 28 references come from obvious primary sources (Ministry / National Assembly / The Office of the President / Socialist Party / UNESCO?) and I think that's not enough to discredit the entire article. Which sources aren't reliable among the rest? Palau seems to punch above its weight for what it is, and topics from underrepresented regions should be given more consideration before jumping to 'delete' voting. –Vipz (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not beat around the bush here - the topic area of "Serbia vs. Kosovo" is hardly an underrepresented one. Does it warrant a 'bilateral relations' article for each of the offshoots? --Joy (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to beat around bushes, the importance of Kosovo in the initial development of those relations is explicitly stated (at least on Serbian side it was a primary motivation, doesn't seem like that on Palau's side). Saying that their relations are ONLY about Kosovo issue is original research if there is no reliable source stating it without other reliable sources challenging it.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's the thing - an encyclopedia needs to describe the real world. What's happening in the real world is a bunch of politicians occasionally talking. If our standard for reality is that, well, we might as well just give up on WP:AT and make a fresh article for each new press release :) This is not supposed to be WikiNews. --Joy (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, maybe, but in this case we should split this article into multiple articles on 2-3 meetings, different policy areas, Yugoslavia in UN's body, shared initiative at UNESCO... but you are right, it may be too much. What is bringing it all together that it is about relations between Palau and Serbia in its different aspects and with different motivation.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ per no significant coverage and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my opinion, this is a textbook Wikipedia:Overcategorization. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add, I believe that the coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:ROUTINE since it is essentially inherited by country X being in the United Nations. Though I am hinging a little bit to change my vote since the updated sources do satisfy the basic notability guideline. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In small countries of the Global South many initiatives which may be routine for major powers are in fact very important. For example, newly independent states without hard power, use summitry and ceremonies as an important tool. This fact is widely recognised in relevant literature (I can attach some references if needed but everyone may just Google it). They may be in the same category but will nevertheless be events of different magnitude for parties involved (e.g. person in Iceland speaking Icelandic and person in Paraguay speaking Icelandic, both in the same category of Icelandic speakers but the second one may be more notable). State visit from Hungary to Serbia is therefore very unexceptional, but state visit from Palau is certainly not.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change to keep based solely on WP:GNG. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. It is clear that there is RS here on Palu-Serbia, such as here, but it seems like a 1-event (or topic) category. Why don't we integrate these bilateral single-topic relations (which go back and forward over time, so they are strung out and are less like events), into a single article on Pacific Islands-Serbia relations (or other sensible groupings)? I have sympathy that disparate articles with small countries over the same topic will be too hard to manage/keep updated. Better to aggregate imho, or as time goes by, this article will fall into disrepair. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This proposal certainly does sound like an interesting idea. It just honestly haven't crossed my mind so far. Is it common to do it in this way and how appropriate it may be?--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is a good idea to "aggregate" into more substantive topic areas if there is more "aggregate" RS on the topic; makes for a more stable article long-term (i.e. borderline cases have a habit of returning again to AfD). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: a lot of work has clearly gone into the article, but I think it's still fundamentally WP:SYNTH: to stand as an article in its own right, it shouldn't be the only work in print or publication with its topic area. There are lots of sources cited for individual aspects of the relationship between Palau and Serbia, but unless multiple reliable secondary sources have written on that relationship as a whole, I don't think we can have an article on it. With that said, the proposal for an aggregated article may be able to clear that hurdle, if the sources exist. Another option might be for a list article? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: sources should provide non-incidental coverage of the topic but the topic does not have to be the primary subject of the source. That being said, multiple quoted sources address the relationship in general, some even as a primary topic stated in the title (The beginning of relations between Palau and Serbia for example). Aspects of bilateral relations are certainly part of the topic and better suited for this than for any other article. Of course, the idea to consider other alternatives to deletion is interesting since this article certainly contains important encyclopedic information of interest for some readers.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is met, and the assertion that the article is only about Palau ceasing to recognize Kosovo is incorrect. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep WP:HEY applies and WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR it is technically true that the article no longer talk only about the diplomatic exchanges from 2018 and 2019 about Kosovo, it now has a paragraph about an event from 2022 at UNESCO, right? It seems to describe something happening with eight other countries. I thought these were about bilateral relations, not multilateral relations? What is the significant coverage of Serbia-Palau relations in https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381043? It's a 5 page PDF that mentions the word Serbia one time in the summary. And how is this source independent of the subject, if these are member countries of the same organization? --Joy (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hélder Reis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS, I have added what I found with a BEFORE which was that he lost in round one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Portugal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 07:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unless someone can find significant prose coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Database entries are insufficient to establish notability per WP:NATHLETE. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Full name is Hélder Sancho da Costa Reis. This, and the Portuguese word for fencer, esgrimista, might help identify sources about the subject and not the (more notable/recent) Hélder Reis, a television presenter. What I have found is a Portuguese TV report about the fencer winning the national final in 1973. It seems he was inducted into a fencing Hall of Fame or similar in 2022 Portuguese fencing website report. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on Kingsif's findings above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete We can WP:V him but he has no significant coverage apart from maybe that film. We can always re-create if that's incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boomf[edit]

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

The fact that 6 out of 7 references here mention the Middleton name in their headline suggest that this business was only covered by the press because it was founded by the now Princess of Wales' brother. WP:INHERITORG states that an organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The company went into administration in 2021, see here and here. I don't think the company would be considered noteworthy on its own merits without the named associations.

The creator of the article also appears to be a SPA, who exclusively wrote about, perhaps for promotional reasons, Boomf. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It would be against consensus to argue that Boomf is notable because it is associated with James Middleton. At the same time it is against consensus to argue that a topic with significant independent coverage is not notable because it is associated with James Middleton. We should consider the coverage that exists, not speculate about why it exists. Gab4gab (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One Dreamer (video game)[edit]

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

I am not seeing the sources required for the title to pass WP:GNG. Kotaku is the only publication that mentioned it in a detailed manner, while Adventure Gamers is just an announcement posting. Well Played is not mentioned in WP:VG/S, others are unreliable. Per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." An article with a single instance of SIGCOV is insufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As the article creator, no resistance to deletion for GNG. I've taken a second look for sources and sadly this does seem to fall short of other sources of major coverage. I dont think Well Played is a particularly strong source, but would be interested what the convention is for assessing notability of coverage by websites not covered under WP:VG/S for future reference.

ly the Vrxces (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well basically if the notability hinges on an unclear source, you can post the source on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and then ask for feedback on whether it is reliable prior to making the article.

In this case I still don't think it would be notable even if Well Played is reliable. However, given that the site describes itself as "a collective of gamers" rather than a true publication, I have serious doubts that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass the GNG. CastJared (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I was able to find some other sources: [1] [2] [3] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indiegamesplus is not listed as reliable, Source #2 is an interview - primary source, and Source #3 is Kotaku, making both SIGCOV from the same place. I doubt people here would find Indiesgamesplus reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indiegamesplus is Indiegames, it's just a site rename after the website no longer had UBM. As for the interview, this is an example of an interview as a secondary source, posted on a reliable website by an independent author. Finally, Kotaku Australia is its own separate staff, so being the same website doesn't really matter, since I don't imagine a coordinated campaign occurred to get both branches to talk about it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is: is the independent IndieGamesPlus still reliable after splitting from its owner? I don't think that's just an open and shut case for its reliability. I also don't think it's provable that Kotaku AU's writer was not inspired in any way from seeing the earlier Kotaku review when writing the list. They could very well have went over games Kotaku previously reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The staff of IG and IGP are the same, and multiple discussions occurred about the change where editors affirmed that having the same EIC and staff was enough that they didn't need to reevaluate it. As for Kotaku, I feel like that's speculative, and not really any more relevant than if IGP was inspired by another article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cukie Gherkin. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarala Birla Academy[edit]

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. RPSkokie (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, and is unsourced. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. Most of the article is likely WP:OR, as well. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. Hijacked article has been restored. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bharat Mandir,Rishikesh[edit]

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

complete and utter unsourced mess of an article. can we blow it up? lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - article was hijacked. It was previously Silhua, an article about a village that is likely notable. That article should be restored really. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

1576 in Macau[edit]

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

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 in Nagaland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 41 other articles for deletion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the "[X year] in Macau" is a topic for scholarly research. The articles fail WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. All of these lists are also stubs, with very little information presented.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the other AfDs were for non-sovereign entities. I don't see why these lists would be considered indiscriminate, either, which is important, because list articles don't need to meet GNG, making this an invalidly formed deletion argument. These were the sorts of articles you'd see in actual print encyclopaedias if I remember correctly. The "no scholarly research" argument doesn't apply to lists. I think you could make a very comprehensive argument that we could have say 2000s in Macau instead of individual years based on the amount of information available in each article, and I would support that merge, but deleting would remove information that's completely validly in the encyclopaedia for years per Wikipedia:Timeline. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macau is a non-sovereign city-sized administrative division of China, so I think the examples provided (Nagaland - Administrative Division) & (New York City - City) is appropriate. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look at Wikipedia:Timeline, which seems to be primarily a style guide, without any specific standards on the notability required for the inclusion of a list. Likewise, the linked page Wikipedia:Timeline standards is also mostly a a style guide, without any standards on notability. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macau has the highest level of autonomy possible for a Chinese administrative region and is frequently referred to in the same breath as other sovereign countries, similar to Hong Kong. WP:LISTN is the valid guideline here, and Wikipedia:Timeline simply demonstrates that the "year in country" is a valid purpose as a result of: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This clearly fulfills a recognized informational purpose, even though I do admit it could be organised better. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete hastily. There is simply no need for this breadth of detail on a small nation with no compelling need for subordinating historic information in this way, it's just unedited data. It's almost embarrassing when one comes across articles like this because it's unencyclopedic. What is the circumstance where a reader interested in Macau would need information laid out in this way? Macau has such a small impact on worldwide geopolitics at current that this doesnt meet notability guiidelines Cliffordben1994 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you don't like it. Got it. That has absolutely nothing to do with our inclusion standards. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as per points put forward by SportingFlyer. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stress (card game)[edit]

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

I can find no record of this game in over 100 book sources dedicated to card games. The online source cited is not a WP:RS nor are the others that I could find which look like circular references. Unless we can find RS to support the article, it should be considered for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I looked into sources for this when rewriting the rules a few years ago and couldn't find any strong ones. --Belbury (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiArt[edit]

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

completely unnotable wiki. sourced to itself, poor quality sources, and trivial mentions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retain. I've been editing WP for over 10 years. I took a quick look at WikiArt and can find no criteria for deletion present. The subject of the article is notable, since it was the topic of a serious article in the Smithsonian Magazine, one of its references. The article is written well, although a bit short, and contains references for its major points. There is no problem with WP:POV or WP:OR. On the other hand, the complaint that triggered this request for deletion is a brief, uncapitalized sentence that gives no examples to justify any of its four complaints. Because the complaint isn't reasonable as it currently stands, and because the topic relates to Ukraine, a country at war, my guess is that this deletion attempt is politically motivated. Again, that is just a guess, but it would explain its apparent attempt to vandalize WP. David Spector (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah, yes, my nomination is of course politically motivated.

seriously, though, let's take a look at the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
ref 1		this is a blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 2		this is oprah's personal blog.	? moot	✘ No
ref 3		? moot	presumably just proof of the website's age (although the ref is borked).	✘ No
ref 4	borked, but is clearly the website's own blog	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 5	subject website	? moot	? moot	✘ No
ref 6			here's the article which you (presumably) claim to count towards wikiart's notability. yet the only mention of it is this: To train their algorithm, researchers used the more than 80, 000 images from WikiArt.org, one of the largest online collections of digital art. the rest is explaining the technology using wikiart's database. it's just mentioned as a database!	✘ No
ref 7			or is it this one? still the same problem, the only mention of it is this: The other network is the “discriminator” network, which is trained on 81,500 images from the WikiArt database, spanning centuries of painting. that's it.	✘ No
ref 8		?	still the same problem! the only mention of it is this: For the training, they used 81,449 paintings by 1,119 artists in the publicly available WikiArt data set. nothing so far is significant coverage.	✘ No
ref 9		?	it's the same thing again and again. mere referrals to wikiart as a database, nothing more.	✘ No
ref 10		?	i think you know what i'm going to say already.	✘ No
ref 11			only mention? trivial! The team collected a set of 15,000 portraits from online art encyclopedia WikiArt, spanning the 14th to the 19th century, and fed them into the GAN algorithm.	✘ No
ref 12			big surprise, it's the same darn thing! To start, Cetinic and her colleagues analyzed more than 100,000 images from WikiArt. that's it.	✘ No
ref 13		?	go on, guess.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

nothing here works. lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michel Lanskoy[edit]

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

sourced to databases. this is one of those articles on non-notable sportspeople. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that there is no coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, but he won medals at three different World Table Tennis Championships and this may be enough. Chiserc (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
enough? for what??? lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be enough to validate notability. I think with a WP:BEFORE could be easily seen that there is coverage, so my statement about no coverage is actually not correct, it requires much better research on not-easily-found historical sources. Apart from the source Alpha3031 found, I found a mention of Michel Lanskoy on Dagblad voor Amersfoort and a mention in the Table Tennis magazine (Vol. 10 March, 1952). Because it is an athlete of 1940s-1950s, it requires a research beyond websites, mainly on historic newspapers and magazines. Although I can't investigate French language sources easily, I also found mentions of Michel Lanskoy on International herald tribune, many reports on L'Athlète (Bordeaux) and Libération. So it's not weak, but keep for me. Chiserc (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a chance he appears in contemporaneous French newspapers, but the article as it stands fails WP:GNG and if he's not in those newspapers, the article would need to be deleted. I don't know how to search those newspapers, though, so my !vote should be considered as a very soft one. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no expert on French sources but there seems to be some newspaper coverage? Like, in the Wednesday issue of L'Athlète: "Le champion du monde de tennis de table Bergmann: devrait faire triompher la sélection anglaise devant Bordrez - Lanskoy". @Lettherebedarklight, can I ask if you've found any foreign language sources at all, whether or not you've fully evaluated them? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i did not find that in my source search. lettherebedarklight 晚安 12:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For English language sources, there's also some coverage in the November 1965 Sports Illustrated, Spongers Seldom Chisel: But the big match was Satoh-Lanskoy. Everyone was waiting to see that one." "Michel Lanskoy? The Frenchman? Why him?" asked an eager junior. "He's not so good." I'd say the SIGCOV here is more of Satoh than Lanskoy, but this is just from the fully indexed and online searchable sources, I would be very surprised if there wasn't more. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact he appeared in Sports Illustrated at all suggests to me there has to be more out there in French? It's not impossible it's a fluke, but that seems a fairly significant mention. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Dziewialtowski[edit]

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

There are over 100 newspaper database matches for Dziewialtowski, but apart from a couple of paragraphs in the Aberdeen Evening Express for 26 November 1997, I couldn't find anything that amounts to more than brief, routine coverage of results. Looks to me like he fails to meet WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Scotland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - going by newspaper coverage alone, you might have a point...but if we take Dziewialtowski as failing WP:GNG, I feel we will need to apply this to about half of all snooker player articles we have on Wikipedia. I'm happy to contribute to that process if that is the route we choose to take, but I believe it would be counter-productive to our aim of increasing the coverage of snooker here. I take the view that he meets the criteria for notability established here - [4] - having been ranked 68 at one point during a career lasting twelve years, and having been a quarter-finalist in a major tournament, the 1997 UK Championship. It's regrettable that there was only a passing mention of that achievement, but in my view, this should not detract from the fact that such an achievement - coupled with his albeit moderate career success - is sufficient for him to be notable here. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Montgomery15: I sympathise with your view but I don't think it accords with policy. Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which links to the page you mention, states that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it." Near the top of the page that you link to, it says "Please note that the wikiproject advice below... should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any other coverage in reliable sources about Dziewialtowski, such as in books or other media, please share the details. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - My recollection was he got quite a bit of newspaper coverage at the time of the 1997 UK Championship and its aftermath. I suspect that this was largely as it was very unusual for a player at his ranking to get so far in a major tournament and there was a thought that he could be the next big Scottish player. While I would probably lean towards saying he is notable enough to have an article, I can see the case against as well. I would suggest if deletion is agreed to then a Redirect to 1997 UK Championship would be a good option as I do think people might search for him and this is undoubtedly the event that he is best known for (and why he would be searched for). Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm loathe to vote because I'm unable to do a before search on my own for someone who would have been in the papers during the early internet age, but if BennyOnTheLoose's before is correct, then this should be deleted or redirected. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chikau Mansale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Toledo Mud Hens season[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Natou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FV Time Bandit[edit]

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

Has been redirected by several editors, no in-depth coverage outside show. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Alaska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the article per Onel5969's reasoning. A redirect post-deletion is probably fine. SportingFlyer T·C 09:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stips (Israeli website)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as the sources are either passing references or are not independent of the subject. An attempted draftification was contested by page creator. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Israel. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, this article is important and should not be deleted. It's overwhelming Israel recently. I know the sources are not 100%, but I'm active on the website for almost three years and I'm sure all I wrote is true. There is a number of independent sources not from Stips and I will probably find more in the future to verify all statements in the article. אוהד בר-און (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@אוהד בר-און:What you have written is probably true, however being active on the website and reporting your findings to Wikipedia is original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. We also need multiple significant reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's fundamental notability guideline. Failing it (which this article does in my opinion) is valid grounds for deletion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I can find 10 more independent sources, will my article be spared? אוהד בר-און (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted, even though the sources aren't the best (probably because there are only few sources in English about this Israeli site).

The article is written nicely and clearly, there's no appropriate reason to delete it. מיכאל גנפולסקי (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can use Hebrew-language sources here, if you need to. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator as sources are not independent and therefore doesn’t meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saleem Samad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as all sources fail WP:SIGCOV for various reasons. I found some mentions of him in Google Books, but they all seemed to be passing mentions. A draftification was contested. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Bangladesh, and Canada. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Lunde[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; none of the provided citations offer independent coverage of Lunde, just works by Lunde. Searching the internet, Google Scholar, and my university library I was able to find two reviews of works by Lunde, [5] and [6], but which don't discuss Lunde himself or his role in the works at all. When considering the case for WP:NACADEMIC, both of the reviews I would describe as faint praise for the works, nor is there any evidence of a high h-index despite publishing extensively. One of Lunde's primary outlets has been Aramco World described as follows in an Indiana University paper [7]: As Aramco World approached its fiftieth anniversary in November 1999, a retrospective feature touted the cosmopolitan ethos of the publication in its very founding, as it supposedly emerged from Aramco's culturally sensitive priorities. Presuming a fundamental chasm between US Americans and Saudis, the magazine sought: "to bridge the natural but enormous cultural gaps between its expatriate, largely American, workers and their Saudi counterparts and hosts … "7 Founded in 1949 in New York, Aramco World was modeled after other contemporaneous US publications like Life and Saturday Evening Post.8 In 1964, it shifted its publication headquarters from New York to Beirut, where it remained until the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.9...n the case of Aramco World, for example, tight Saudi control of the magazine's contents remained in place (as it does to this day), even though the magazine was being produced in Lebanon to, in part, present an ostensibly localized and authentic—rather than propagandistic—picture of the region.12; -- in other words, at best a general interest magazine, at worst a propaganda venture. In the absence of biographical sources about Lunde, I'm not seeing a case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Saudi Arabia, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Lunde's books have been published by major publishers including Dorling Kindersley and reviewed in a number of independent, reliable publications including Library Journal (with multiple reviews in this publication including one from 2004 of his Organized Crime book and one from 2009 for The Book of Codes), Kirkus Reviews (2009 review of Book of Codes), Publishers Weekly (2002 review of Islam: Faith, Culture, History plus discussion of the book in a separate PW article), National Geographic's History Magazine (2009 review of Codes), and The Middle East Journal (2002 review of Islam), His work is also reviewed and cited in a number of other places, with all of these citations accessible through the Wikipedia Library. In short, there are easily enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salwa Mahalle[edit]

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

Not meeting notability for biographies or academics. Sources used are wikidata items and lists of where she's worked. All I find for sourcing are various university websites where she's spoken. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Souâd Benkredda[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. Article is largely sourced to lists of "100 best people" or the like; no other sources found beyond linkedin or various mentions of positions they've held. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment A possibly reliable independent source: fax.net article Gab4gab (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Individual Event[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also fails WP:NOTDB. I would also support a redirect to Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, and Thailand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This is essentially a list. The article kind of has to be as it is. How would this be fit into (Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games) considering no other match results are listed there? The fact that we have any sources at all on this is a feat. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a valid keep reason. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sportsfan 1234 - The results are all sourced and we can assume there's more out there, but we also know we have limited access to it currently. How would this fit any other way? There's also some additiona references listed on the German page of the competition - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdostasienspiele_1975/Badminton. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, it's common practice to create separate pages for individual and team events to remove burden on the main page. See other SEA Games Badminton articles where singles, doubles, team all have distinct articles. You can find more sources when searching for this subject in NewspaperSG. This is a page related to Southeast Asian Games, where badminton is a hugely popular sport and the mass reporting was done on local newspapers, some of which are available at newspapersg. So when you say that this is an "indiscriminate" collection of facts, you are completely wrong. It has a high importance when looking it from the view of Badminton World, being a significant regional event. zoglophie 06:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Blatantly fails WP:NOTDATABASE. The above claims of "high importance" and this being a "significant regional event" are not substantiated by the sources themselves, which are all listings of results and contain no prose. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page is essentially a part of main page as said already, it was separated to reduce the weight on main article. Also, do you mean nothing knowing that top 5 players of the World at that time participated in this competition? zoglophie 09:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how notability works, and split articles are still required to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games is not a large enough article that this split is a valid one. I don't agree with deleting the information, though - just the stand-alone article bit. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This looks like a perfectly valid sub-article, and the sub-article does not necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if the main event meets it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed on the logic, but the original article is so small no split is necessary. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Mosque Allahabad[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in reliable sources. This article is based on Wikipedia:Original research. BookishReader (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a 2019 photo of the mosque

Keep. You have got to be kidding me. It is not a made-up false thing (see photo at right, and see Commons category:Grand Mosque Allahabad). The article states it has 101 domes and capacity for 10,000 worshippers. It was under construction in 2018. Surely there is coverage of its construction, though perhaps not found by Google searching "Grand Mosque Allahabad", which is obviously not in Urdu and is perhaps not even its common name in English. Search "masjid Sindh" and other variations of placenames and "mosque". Here is one academic-type paper about it: Grand_Mosque_Allahabad_Kandyaro_5_april_1_corrected. There is a news report in OpIndia (a blacklisted site so my edit including the URL won't save) about a pretty horrible crime caught by CCTV (I believe in this mosque) "Pakistan: Maulvi rapes child reading Quran in mosque in Sindh province, caught on CCTV". User:BookishReader, your not liking the sources means you could tag the article, but opening an AFD is not called for without performing a decent wp:BEFORE effort. Given pretty obvious significance, if you haven't found significant coverage, you haven't searched enough. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Perhaps this AFD should be cut short and closed as "Speedy Keep". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KEEP Certainly gives the impression that this Deletion Nominator is going after the entire category of MOSQUES in Pakistan this time? Other Wikipedia editors have objected to him 'flooding the AfD Forum with a flurry of nominations'. See their comments above here at St. Patrick's Institute of Science & Technology about this. I also ask the same question WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Let's pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines, please...Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to stop casting aspersions against me. This is already enough. Please strike this statement "Certainly gives the impression that this Deletion Nominator is going after the entire category of MOSQUES in Pakistan this time?" immediately. I know what it takes to create articles and I have started many articles about mosques: Ali Muhammad Khan Mosque, Akhund Panju Baba Mosque, Sawi Mosque. BookishReader (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The usage of Allahabad in the name limits my searches due to location from where I am accessing the internet. Allahabad is a place in India and this Grand Mosque Allahabad in is Pakistan. My search in English did not bring anything helpful and Urdu searches come mostly about mosques in Allahabad. I am not sure about the reliability of the paper available on academia because that's a social media site. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Doncram's both sources are unreliable. The article (OpIndia) they're referring to must be about a mosque in Allahabad, India. Academia.edu is just a file uploaded by the mosque itself (brochure like) - it is not an academic journal article. BookishReader (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to clarify whether sourcing is about the correct building or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It's honestly really difficult to find information on this, in English, in a way that clearly passes GNG. I've performed several different searches with several different spellings. It's clearly verified, though, it's clearly mentioned in news reports to the point where WP:OR clearly doesn't apply, I can't search in languages that should clearly demonstrate notability, and a church of this importance elsewhere would be clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vladimir Cojocaru[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. The football player only came up in databases when I did a WP:BEFORE. However, that does not count as WP:SIGCOV. It's been tagged as {{BLP one source}} since May 2020, so I'm doubtful that any other sources could be found. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG. My before search only brought up statistical directories. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Thorn (character)[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this character fails WP:GNG. I tried a search combination of "Black Thorn" + "DC", "Black Thorn" + "Kupperberg", etc. but I can only find WP:USERGEN blogs. I'd suggest a merge to List of DC Comics characters: B § Black Thorn, but I don't think much of the actual biographical text is usable.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge, it is WP:ALLPLOT. Adding more plot to a list that already fails WP:LISTN does not improve the situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American College of Orgonomy[edit]

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

Lacking in significant coverage from independent sources. The sources currently in the article are either by the subject (#1), don't mention the subject (#2-5, which are about orgone generally), or only mention the organization in passing (#6-7).

Sources not mentioned in the article are better, though not enough to save it from deletion [8] is the only one I've found that discusses it in depth, but a single source isn't sufficient for an article. Other mentions ([9][10]) are clearly trivial.

Also, while this doesn't strictly bear on whether the article gets deleted, it's also worth noting that the article was transparently created by a member of the organization, and a glance at the history will show that it's been repeatedly whitewashed, even if the current iteration isn't. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Air Polonia destinations[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

As was outlined at the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations and quoted in a recent related AFD, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. As per the subsequent AN discussion, subsequent AFDs may or will be nominated in a orderly fashion provided they have a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any closing decisions.

To briefly summarise, the articles on their own would fail WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. To outline and quote an argument in the linked related recent AFD mentioned in the first paragraph, WP:CORP would apply to articles dedicated to the products and services offered by a company. The airlines nominated on this list are also defunct (or have since closed down), and lack of (or zero) sourcing in nominated would pass that standard. The extremely limited coverage was found in only one of those articles (List of Midwest Connect destinations), which largely came from the closed airline's website (now a defunct link) and is therefore not an independent source and would not pass WP:INDEPENDENT. All other nominated articles are largely unreferenced and clearly fail WP:V.

WP:BEFORE is not mandatory, however doing a brief research found only a Air Wales route map on a blog website, whilst looking for MexicaLink and Delta Express destinations largely returned results linking to mirror websites of Wikipedia and may be worth being a minor mention in the parent airline's articles (Mexicana de Aviación and Delta Air Lines) under their history sections respectively.

I am open to other suggestions, but considering the listed airlines are defunct and the lack of available independent sources that may rescue those articles, for now I would recommend Delete as the nominator. Coastie43 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Mexico, Poland, and United States. Coastie43 (talk)
Strong Delete all: If any airline destinations are violating WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it should be deleted because it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. CastJared (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think these are valid list articles, but the community disagrees. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic subjects, see WP:NOTGUIDE as well as WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that it really matters, but NOTGUIDE doesn't apply here as this is not the sort of information that would ever appear in a guidebook. And this is information that appears in the "guides to airlines" books, so it's not really trivia either. But that ship has sailed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kevin Galván[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mario Williams (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digital Data Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. As far as I can tell, the article has had no sources in its nearly 10 year existence. Maybe there exists coverage in print media from the time the company existed? I wasn't able to find anything online, however. Uhai (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, United States of America, and Virginia. Uhai (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing a former consultancy company and its toolset. I am not seeing anything to indicate that the company or its tools attained distinct notability. The 2013 Merge discussion appears to have veered into the notability of CSC (which for me is clear) rather than DDS (which isn't); a redirect to Computer Sciences Corporation is a feasible WP:ATD though I would prefer there to be some reference (even a press release) to support adding mention there of the acquisition. AllyD (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invidious[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, non-primary coverage appears limited to tech blogs of dubious reliability and listicles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dawnbails (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Invidious is backend of quite a few projects such as YouTube clients, Privacy redirects.Greatder —(talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)'Reply[reply]
Keep Invidious is a valuable open-source project that is used by many people. As stated by another user, it is a frequent component of so-called privacy redirect plugins. These plugins typically consist of Quetre, Libreddit, Imginn, Nitter, ProxiTok, and Invidious. To state that this project is not notable is absurd. JoeBo82(talk)

Can you point to...any...coverage in a reputable tech magazine or academic journal? The best we've got right now is passing coverage in makeuseof.com [11], [12], a source described as unreliable to marginally reliable the one time it was brought to RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#Should_MakeUseOf.com_be_considered_a_reliable_source? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: @Rosguill: Because of the name, it is difficult to sort through unrelated search hits. Because of the purpose (downloads from YouTube, owned by Google), search results could be...suspect. These are not as big and "reliable" as NYTimes - List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times, but they are independent and arguably reputable, if not magazines or academic journals: Described at Free Software Foundation directory, written by Craig Topham, "an administrator and bureaucrat of the Free Software Directory",[13] Instructions and app written up at archlinux.org, known for reliable documentation (in some circles),[14][15] Windows apps described in Softpedia (has editor? team)[16][17] -- Yae4 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those links look like a mix of database entries and user-generated sources , neither of which typically contribute towards establishing notability. The Softpedia coverage appears to be mere-mentions unless I'm misunderstanding something. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know where the precise line is between user-generated unreliable like Wikipedia, versus a tightly controlled or curated more reliable wiki you can give some trust, like The Free Software Foundation and Arch Linux wikis, but I do know I've found info' at the latter two to solve problems. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re MakeUseOf.com: At RSN in January 2021, I called it unreliable before Newslinger called it marginally reliable. If Newslinger called it marginally reliable, it's probably reliable enough. Compared with Youtube-dl (aka yt-dlp or others), Invidious is only one take-down notice away from fame and clearer wiki-notability. IMO, Wikipedia is a little worse without the article. WP:IGNORE. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Mentioned on AlternativeTo [18], ProPrivacy [19] and several other tech sites e.g. [20] [21] [22]. The topic is notable (significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources) and the article is a net benefit to the reader. Certes (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be honest, I've read through the linked sources here and from Yae4 and I'm not actually sure which ones are intended to be the examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure myself; it's a matter of opinion. None of them alone would be enough to save the article but, in total, they may be. Certes (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of blogs and UGC sites that mention Invidious, but the most reliable thing I've found was a passing mention in LifeHacker (via Yahoo). So, no, I don't think that'd be enough for an article. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, i agree with all the reasons to keep this page. --XANA404 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is nothing to gain by deletion. (AltheaCase (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
What? SWinxy (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep on IAR. Also, while I don't think a cease-and-desist notice would make Invidious notable under our criteria (NOTNEWS and all that) I have to admit the timing is pretty funny Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the news. Google is a Major Benefactor ($50,000+) to Wikipedia, just saying. Follow the money. Adding: It will be interesting to see whether Invidious can raise a Streisand effect like Youtube-dl did, ~~without~~ being a [self-redacted] of Microsoft GitHub -- Yae4 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bruh, they're not going to inform the Cabal a week before they file a legal proceeding lol, Wikipedia is important but not that important. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP shows up on top of many searches, if there's an article. Coincidence? More coverage at AlternativeTo, FWIW. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I can't find a single source which clearly passes GNG. I don't think any of the blogs listed above in this AfD count towards GNG - they're not sufficiently secondary enough. I'm also hoping the closer discounts some of the poor !votes above when closing, as we're discussing whether there's enough reliable secondary sourcing for this to have a stand-alone article, not about ignoring rules or general agreement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I should have cited RAPID instead then, given that (if I had at all) I probably would have !voted weak delete but for recent events. I'm not sure it will achieve GNG or NSOFT level of coverage, even so, but I'm inclined to at least wait until we see how this plays out. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair, but we can always recreate it if notability becomes obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yoga (Brooke Candy and Only Fire song)[edit]

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

All of the sources appear to be promotional, with a link to the song inserted. It does not meet any of the WP:NSONG criteria. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the singer's article, I can't find links beyond what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the interviews? BiggestBidder (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gongjin-dan[edit]

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

The entire article is made up of unsupported extraordinary medical claims. I don't really see any content that is salvageable here. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, and Korea. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Is nothing but ridiculous pseudoscientific claims. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as not salvageable at this time. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I have removed the unsourced claims. What remains is a sketch with some sourcing. It can be built back in a responsible way. There are numerous hits in a Scholar search so I believe the topic is notable. ~Kvng (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kvng: I am not sure what part of the remainder of the article is helpful - all that is left is a single sentence and a list of books. I can find no secondary sources with which to establish notability, and the claims in the articles found in a Scholar search make such extraordinary claims that I don't believe there's enough sourcing to justify their inclusion per WP:REDFLAG. I suppose the article could be draftified, but I see no value in the article's current form. Tollens (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minimally, the value is that this is a remedy that exists and is discussed in sources and so is likely to be searched for by readers. I'd rather readers see a stub than nothing at all. Some of those readers will be curious, will search elsewhere and will come back and improve this article. That's how Wikipedia works. ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't see what sources could be used to improve the article. I can find exactly zero reliable secondary sources even mentioning the existence of the remedy, but WP:GNG states explicitly that "Sources" should be secondary sources. I too would rather readers see stubs than nothing at all, provided that it is possible to expand the article, but there is simply nothing I can find that would be appropriate to cite. Tollens (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing usable here? ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not clearly that I can see, no. Those are all primary sources that, when taken together, seem to support the ridiculous claims that were in the article, but exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which a few unreplicated studies are not. Tollens (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If all of them had made a similar credible claim, they would absolutely be usable, but they instead all make different claims including but not limited to preventing fatigue, enhancing memory, eliminating insomnia, protecting the brain after a stroke, curing underactive bladder, preventing liver injury, reducing pain, preventing contact dermatitis, enhancing stamina, and improving circulation to the kidneys. It should be clear that if an effective remedy for all these things existed there would be more than a couple studies, and at the very least one reliable secondary source that has mentioned it. Tollens (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, note that WP:MEDRS states in no uncertain terms that Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Tollens (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[23] does appear to be a secondary source but not a high quality one. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah - my mistake. Again, however, the conclusions they come to, even in that single source, are absurd. From their abstract's results section:

In clinical studies, GJD has the various effectiveness in cardiovascular diseases, alcoholic hepatitis, mild dementia, anemia. Also experimental studies related to the GJD show a variety of effects, such as anti-oxidative activity, neuroprotective activity, hepatoprotective activity, anti-inflammatory activity, immunological activity, reproductive recovery activity with fewer side-effects.

The claim is simply ridiculous - that literature review is not enough to support inclusion of anything in it. Tollens (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Traditional Korean medicine, seems to be the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the same thing but presumably a superset. Good idea but Gongjin-dan does not seem to be mentioned there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Geography Bee and other related articles[edit]

– (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of independent secondary sourcing, fails WP:GNG -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Geography. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete all: It does need secondary sources, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CastJared (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NAQT officially includes this as one of the bees they recognize, which can be found here.

There are numerous sources for news coverage of winners of the event. Some recent ones include this one from CBS News Pittsburgh, this one from the Houston Chronicle, this one from the Dayton Daily News, and this one from the Chicago Tribune. There are many more that could be listed, but these bees and bowls easily get as much coverage as any other ones. And they are recognized by other quizzing organizations. Santoslhelper (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Not my subject area, but there is quite a lot of RS on these events, such as in the Washington Post U.S. teens win international geography bee. Has a WP:BEFORE been done here? Aszx5000 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aszx5000 That's about a different competition - the 7 competitions I mentioned above are sponsored by International Academic Competitions, while the one you mentioned is sponsored by National Geographic. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 21:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now see what you mean Prodraxis, that WPO ref was for a different - and notable - bee. I am getting an impression that this is like Beauty Pagents, and some of these "Bees" are full commercial enterprises that sell pre-test books on Amazon and then market themselves extensively. Do you think the above group, which seem all connected, are from that genre? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aszx5000: Yeah.... it is a "beauty pageant" type of situation in here. Like there are some notable pageants like Miss America and tons of other non notable ones, there are notable Geography Bees and such (e.g. National Geography Bee) while there are other non notable ones. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Some of the articles already include references from reliable sources about individual winners. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is kind of a major tournament. And there are enough sources to support it. It has an entire website and sources can lead one to conclude that thisis notable. Especially when the David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) page redirects to this. iac Is one of the major options for quizbowl, and is notable amd credible. The recent IAC had 1,800 attending, excluding thousands who tried to qualify for nationals. 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 63.117.71.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

IP, notability is not inherited (e.g. just because a video game is notable it doesn't mean that any of the characters are also notable.) Plus notability requires significant coverage in independent secondary sources, not primary ones. That means it needs to have coverage that isn't from the official IAC websites, but there's a lack of that coverage. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ever since geo bee from. national geographic went away, iac is a source of bees 63.117.71.249 (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]