User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Battle of Khatu Shyamji	25 days ago	1	2885	2185.08
Econofoods	21 days ago	3	12288	1717.73
Boğaziçi (Istanbul)	18 days ago	2	8698	1520.49
Shirley Clelland	16 days ago	1	5494	1477.07
Albedo Space	18 days ago	4	8473	1441.15
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism	17 days ago	3	5141	1437.49
Macedonian mafia (2nd nomination)	14 days ago	1	4740	1419.14
1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup	17 days ago	4	7786	1400.59
SugarGh0st RAT	13 days ago	1	3008	1347.87
Feli Ferraro (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	0	6040	1323.85
New Republican People's Party	13 days ago	1	3545	1315.09
2009 Espinar bus crash	15 days ago	3	5591	1304.43
232d Medical Battalion	16 days ago	4	6449	1278.7
Glacier Bancorp	14 days ago	2	5954	1273.02
Andre Walker Hair Typing System	13 days ago	2	7950	1212.27
Dickens Hill	15 days ago	4	7123	1201.38
Mehazkim	13 days ago	2	5467	1193.2
Scott Cinemas	11 days ago	1	3746	1158.18
Angus Ross (darts player)	13 days ago	3	6047	1155.57
120 Bahadur	12 days ago	2	10797	1110.83
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)	12 days ago	2	6651	1099.93
2007 Gerry Reilly Cup	10 days ago	1	5587	1097.15
List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies	11 days ago	2	4197	1081
Back to the Real	11 days ago	2	4279	1077.7
Giant Records (independent)	10 days ago	1	4772	1071.05

Battle of Khatu Shyamji

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

The article is not fulfilling WP:GNG. It is based on single source and also a very insignificant event with not much content to write has been converted into an article.It should be deleted and content, if any found relevant should be merged into something related to List of battles in Rajasthan.Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Admantine123 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge - should be merged to article such as List of battles in Rajasthan as said above by the nominator because it is not such notable battle in Rajasthan to have an standalone page. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[1][2] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also relevant that both Keep !voters acknowledge that the sourcing fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No Objections to a Move to Draft either if somebody thinks there are enough sources out there.... HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. I know it's a view that also gets put forward at DRV every so often, but I am thus far unconvinced it is a rational interpretation of the guidelines to obviate the entire force of NCORP for every article it could possibly apply to. No objection to delete either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this should be drafted per @HighKing & alpha3031. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Boğaziçi (Istanbul)

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

Tagged uncited since 2009 and Turkish article is also uncited. Sounds plausible but probably needs a native speaker living in İstanbul to say whether this is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I have left a message on WikiProject Turkey if they could help with this. TNM101 (chat) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged the Turkish article as uncited in the hope that native speakers might add good sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep: There are whole books written about this subject such as "Bogaziçi Gezi Rehberi" by Jack Deleon , and "Boğaziçi sayfiyeleri" by G. V. İnciciyan. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
There is also an article in Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, which is available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah interesting. I had never heard of tr:İstanbul Ansiklopedisi before Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD does not qualify for a Speedy Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have announced this AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia's Village Pump for anyone interested in participating. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

TheJoyfulTentmaker, this could be seen as canvassing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @Liz. I thought this would be considered an appropriate notification as stated in the canvassing guideline, since that is a central location and I was completely open about it. (A more conventional noticeboard for this, WikiProject Turkey, is unfortunately very inactive lately, and maybe this could attract the interest of some existing/prospective project members.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz @TheJoyfulTentmaker I am happy with any of my AfD being publicised on Turkish Wikipedia. In very many cases there is either no Turkish article or it is completely uncited. Many of the Turkish editors would be able to contribute here, but even if they don’t want to come to enwiki if they could cite on trwiki we could simply copy the cite to enwiki. Especially for the many uncited Turkish music, TV and film articles they will be far more knowledgable than me. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is no problem here then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bosphorus in the absence of input from native speakers or Istanbul residents. I can't find other sources that verify this use of the term "Boğaziçi," and the Turkish version doesn't provide sources either. Finally able to view the encyclopedia link provided above now that IA is back online, and it does seem to say this term may be used to refer to the neighborhoods adjacent to the Bosphorus. However, I don't know that the sourcing is strong enough to warrant a standalone article. (I'm open to changing my view if additional sources are presented or a local expert can provide perspective. FWIW, my spouse, while not a Turk, does speak some Turkish and has lived in Istanbul and she knows "Boğaziçi" as a reference to the strait, not as a collective term for the neighborhoods that border it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971 I have no strong objection to a merge for now, since the there seems to be an overlap with the Bosphorus article. However, if anyone is interested in splitting it back and writing a standalone article, I'm pretty sure there will be no shortage of sources. Side note: adding this poem, which I believe is notable on its own, for demonstrating common references to the neighborhood in Turkish literature. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. The correct target page though is Bosporus, the page mentioned in the comments is a redirect page for it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge fine by me as requestor Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Shirley Clelland

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

She passes WP:NATH with seventh place in pentathlon at the 1970 Commonwealth Games but fails GNG. A search through the British Newspaper Archives just found brief mentions and sporting results. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, found several newspaper sources in just the first few pages: "BRILLIANT FUTURE FOR SHIRLEY BEGAN 'AS A BIT OF FUN'". Leicester Chronicle. 29 May 1970. p. 28. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "PENTATHLON WIN FOR SHIRLEY CLELLAND". Leicester Mercury. 24 Aug 1970. p. 22. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "SHIRLEY CLELLAND WINS TWO EVENTS". Leicester Mercury. 23 Sep 1968. p. 24. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024.

I find that the NATH guideline is pretty conservative compared to the others at NSPORT, so it's worth trying multiple search engines if you can't find sources at one. For example NATH says that 4th-placers at the Olympics can't necessarily be presumed to have coverage, but I've yet to find one without GNG sources after searching so far. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It mainly pertains to pre-WWII Olympics, and more so for team sports than individual ones Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I've searched even pre-WWII Olympics to see if there's a non-notable 4th placer and have yet to find one. I agree that in general prewar Olympics were less notable, I just don't think the line should have been drawn at 4th place. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources above from the newspaper archive are fine, the first two are better than the third. Should have enough for notability Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as no consensus, re-opening for one more round
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Albedo Space

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

Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups"). Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Google News suggest no WP:SIGCOV and the NYT article seems like a passing mention Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Will solidify my opinion after a full source review, but after an abbreviated one I am currently inclined to redirect to Very low Earth orbit. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Very low Earth orbit. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The NYT article talks "in general" about the impact of sophisticated cameras in the sky and provides no in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company (which wasn't provided by the company and/or their founders). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, this USA satellite company doesn't not meet GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Why redirect to Very lo Earth orbit though? Could we not direct it to NASA? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nasa is a different and unrelated organization. The company develops "very low earth orbit" satellites so if the article is going to be redirected, it makes sense to redirect there. Equally valid to just delete the article if the redirect doesn't make sense and an alternative doesn't exist... HighKing⁺⁺ 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to generally notable as er sources provided above.Cortador (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. it's notable and keepable as what the links provide by (Mushy Yank) and i think it's enough evidence to keep this article🙂 WikiNicExplorer (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Macedonian mafia

AfDs for this article:

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

I realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on original research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete the sourcing doesn't seem to be there to say that various criminals are connected in an organization called the Macedonian mafia, either by themselves or law enforcement. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

1899–1900 Staffordshire Senior Cup

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

Individual season for local league, fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:FOOTBALL, no significant coverage and nothing remarkable that merits inclusion of this particular season in comparison with other seasons which don't have articles Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to Staffordshire Senior Cup, not sure why you call Staffordshire local, it's a big area!! This occurred a long time ago so I don't know the coverage, there maybe some there in county and local newspaper searches. However I suggest redirect for now as alternative to deletion. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really serve as a useful redirect though, firstly because none of the other seasons of this cup standalone exist as articles or redirects, and secondly, it's useful to no one as people aren't really going to search that season specifically just to redirect to the overall article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I'm seeing a lot of coverage in the BNA for this season. Obviously in the Staffordshire Sentinel, but also in national papers like the Sporting Life, Morning Leader, and papers from other counties. I currently don't have BNA access, User:Pkbwcgs can you precis your BNA search results? Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Redirect" but was asked by an editor whether or not there was a strong consensus for this outcome and after reviewing, I decided to revert myself and relist this discussion. Pinging participants User:Pkbwcgs, User:Govvy, User:GiantSnowman and User:Nfitz
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I remain of the view that a redirect is the most suitable outcome. Giant Snowman 08:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I'm finding a lot of references to that season's competition, particularly in the BNA archive, which I don't have access to. There's less in Newspapers.com because of it's limited UK collection - but I've added 8 references to the article and expanded, from 8 different publications. Can User:GiantSnowman review these? There seems to be plenty of further references available to fully document the season, some surprisingly detailed! Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
None of them look like anything other than results or routine news. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I didn't link any results. These were all text - admittedly one was very brief. Routine refers to sports scores. And this is more than that. Also, someone needs to look at the BNA search results. Most importantly - from your edit history, you spent no more than 30 seconds reviewing 8 references. Your original vote was equally as fast. I really think that not much weight should be given to this redirect opinion. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I got temporary BNA access, so in recognition that many of the references are local, I added 5 more references from other parts of England. Also, I added a second reference from the The Staffordshire Sentinel that is surprisingly detailed, giving a background of the competition before the final match was to be played. So that should sort any remaining GNG concerns. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep per improvements to the article, I'd probably like to see a little more depth, but it's much better, thank you Nfitz. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete yes there have been improvements to the sourcing, but I do not see evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. All of the BNA articles listed are from the time of the matches, when of course there will be some coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment @Joseph2302: Is a topic talked about overtime? Well, the clubs that played in this have the ability to mention it in their match day programmes when they play each other again. That does constitute what you call primary sourcing. However, this in essence is really a historical record on the competition. Having on wikipedia can also give the ability for people to find it and out source it. However, What do you want wikipedia to do? There are policies upon policies on wikipedia, but if you don't want to keep a historic record on wikipedia, then whats wikipedia for? An encyclopaedic archive of historical events and information? This is one of those things, sigcov, sustained are policies, guidelines to adhere, sometimes we do need to look beyond that. But hey, that's my ... two cents. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

SugarGh0st RAT

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the references are not reliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice: I have added more references Arwenz (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep It seems like enough of the references check out, but I think more references and content are needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Feli Ferraro

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously soft-deleted after an AfD in May, and it appears all the same issues discussed there still apply. Both the nominator and sole voter in that AfD called for deletion, and I'd be surprised if anyone would've countered it had there been more participation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Hello! I started this page a while back and have continued working on this page. I did not chime in when the page was previously put up for deletion as I wholeheartedly agreed with the reasoning for deletion: the only mention of the subject not from a publishing body she was signed to/managed by was in passing in one article (that has since been removed as it was from a pseudo-blog owned by the label who released the song it discussed), and while she has continued to craft hits of all sizes (she is a songwriter), there were no awards at the time to further prove notability. However, much has changed since the deletion, as Q3 2023-2024 has been a banner season for her career:

(1) A Billboard magazine article ([3]) discussing an elite writing camp her publishing company put together (of 11 members) that has since appeared on virtually every K-pop album that has broken through in the United States market (nicknamed "the Hit Factory"). Not only does she appear in the cover photo and additional photos, but the article mentions her past and present placements as well as a few mentions of personal life.

(2) A songwriting award (win) from BMI - arguably the largest songwriting/publishing governance organization, as the song she co-wrote was ranked in the top 20 of pop songs in the past year based on radio airplay, club play, live performances, and TV commercial placements.

(3) A songwriting award (nomination) for "Wild Ones" - a large country-pop single (2x Platinum) this year that is already being discussed in several Grammy award songwriting and performance categories (to be announced next month in November).

(4) She has since co-written/produced virtually an entire major label album (female rapper Coi Leray's COI), receiving her first Billboard Top 10 single as a writer, as well as several songs with David Guetta that became hits in the European / Australian markets. Trainsskyscrapers (talk 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Nomination of Feli Ferraro for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

New Republican People's Party

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

There is no such thing as the “New Republican People’s Party”. The phrase was used a couple of times by the former leader, but the sources don’t support the claim that it was consistently applied or had any specific meaning. Yes the former leader changed some of the party’s political direction, and perhaps a few sentences from this article could be merged into Republican People's Party, but essentially this just isn’t a thing. The article is based on WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: this refers to the (Turkish: Yeni Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), not any other nation. — Maile (talk)
Speedy keep: The naming can be discussed but it is obvious that there is a notable, coherent topic here with reliable sources. Side note: speedily kept on the Turkish Wikipedia [4] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

2009 Espinar bus crash

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

Lacks sustained coverage in secondary sources and had no lasting effects. This is a news article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Peru. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 41 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete – There appears to be some continued coverage that may demonstrate the event's notability,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] however, the fact that some do not provide significant coverage of the event plus the lack of demonstrable lasting effects all make me lean towards a weak delete. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.
^ "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: No one is disputing the existence of the systemic bias mentioned by Necrothesp. In this case, however, the bias is inherited. If this crash were to happen in the UK or US, there'd be massive national and international media coverage, and annual observance days would be covered by local media for lasting impact, not to mention likely changes in regulations. Biased as it is, we are bound by what secondary sources provide us with. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

232d Medical Battalion

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

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@TheBirdsShedTears, neither of the refs you added is independent, so what is the basis of your keep !vote? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The refs are definitely not independent and do not count towards notability whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with 32nd Medical Brigade: where the lack of independent sourcing for the battalion would be less of a problem. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Glacier Bancorp

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, Delaware, and Montana. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources to clear WP:NCORP almost always exist for publicly traded companies. "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports", and that is the case for this company. See the table below linking to recent (paywalled) independent analyst reports from MarketBeat for Glacier Bancorp (GBCI). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
10/2/2024	Raymond James	Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$45.00 ➝ $48.00	+7.55%	View Report Details
9/20/2024	Truist Securities	Boost Target	Hold ➝ Hold	$46.00 ➝ $50.00	+6.68%	View Report Details
8/27/2024	Piper Sandler	Reiterated Rating	Neutral ➝ Neutral	$38.00 ➝ $38.00	-17.84%	View Report Details
4/23/2024	Stephens	Lower Target	Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight	$44.00 ➝ $40.00	+4.49%	View Report Details
4/22/2024	DA Davidson	Lower Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$48.00 ➝ $45.00	+25.28%	View Report Details

Comment I have access to reports of this type. A more correct name for those reports are "price target" reports. They do not contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company, instead they contain calculations based on earnings, dividends, projections, etc and then determine whether, according to their proprietary calculations, whether the stock price will move and therefore whether they recommend an investor should buy/hold/sell. That's not to say that those analysts haven't created fuller reports which do, in fact, contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company. Just that those ones linked above aren't it. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Dclemens, and a quick Google news search[5]. This company likely meets notability criteria. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Andre Walker Hair Typing System

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

Most of the sources are bad:

"Curlcentric" - looks to just be mostly trying to sell you something

"Women Health Info Blog" - is, well, a blog, one that looks to be by a "Prof. Dr. Gayane Dolyan Descornet" and seems to check out( maybe they deserve their own article? I see this so they've been around for a while) but is still basically just a self-published blog.(from my understanding we wouldn't cite a totally self published blog by Neil Degrasse Tyson on astromy related stuff afterall)

Oprah.com - Yea totally not a problematic source to have your boss promote your system

studio2121 - 404'd, but is regardless just literally an actual hair salon

this leaves the two podcasts and probably the strongest sources for the existence of this article being 99% Invisible and "The Stoop", haven't heard of the latter before, but it looks like something that could probably get its own article but just hasn't if it's press and awards page is to be believed

Anyway I'm basically arguing that everything but these two podcasts are bad sources, that leads into a bit of a more nebulous issue, that being that the system is basically considered bunk (yes, I know that a Reddit thread isn't the greatest of evidence, but I honestly don't know that much about this subject) or at least highly divisive on technical grounds (also supposedly racial grounds, but I don't really see it), and I only dived into this rabbithole because I saw this classification chart on the Hair article, and it just seemed so.....unscientific? I'm not sure, but I feel like this only exists as a page because someone attached to someone famous came up with it.

If this is successfully deleted, I'd also call for the nuking of Hair#Classification_systems for similar grounds, because unlike the main article that section isn't cited at all and neither is whatever the "FIA" system is. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Akaibu (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment 1: Note for other editors, the nominator seems to be mass nominating articles for deletion after being temporarily blocked and then warned of a permanent block for disruptive editing (see their talk page). I will assume good faith that they are learning the rules.

Comment 2:I wrote the article after listening to the 99% Invisible episode, I'll work on adding more references to resolve the issue, please give me a few days to do this before adding your feedback as once I add the additional refs your comments will be out of date. Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @John Cummings, I see that you have added more references, but they don't seem to me to be very reliable ones, as well as addressing the issues I brought up with the prior references used. Though yes I'm a newer editor so a second opinion on the reliability of the current references might be warranted, but I don't believe I'm wrong in this regard. Hopefully you can address those in your next edit to the page. Akaibu (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep There are reliable sources: Conde Nast's Allure (magazine), Byrdie (part of Dotdash Meredith), and Hairdressers Journal[6] (from Professional Beauty Group) seems a fairly major trade publication. Plus there are research papers. And WP:BIAS: articles primarily relevant to black women suffer due to lack of interest from WP editors, uncertainty about what's a reliable source, etc, as well as prejudice that such topics are unencyclopedic/trivial. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was done before this nomination. In addition to sources already in the article (including the ones added today or yesterday), here are some others that come up even in a brief Google search:
- Glamour: [7]
- Essence: [8]
- GQ: [9]
- Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition: [10]
- ChemRxiv: [11]

So it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much, added them :) John Cummings (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus here. An additional review of newly added or located sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I've added a large number of reliable sources since this initial listing which resolves the issue with sourcing. The original nominator also linked to a reddit discussion, which I will ignore since its not within the scope of a Wikipedia deletion discussion. John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. There is no clear consensus on a target, rendering a redirect a non viable ATD. If folks come to consensus on that, happy to restore the history under the redirect. Star Mississippi 14:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Dickens Hill

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

This is mostly without sources, or sourced to the BBC, which doesn't approach WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is plot recap which is already covered at the character articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Whilst it can be argued that the plot is overly detailed, I see no reason to delete this article as it is a significant and length story arc which was a prominent part of the soap during this period. Rillington (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rillington do you have reliable sources showing this impact and notability? These are needed in order to build a separate article upon and verify that this subject is meeting independent guidelines. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The length of this story arc - several months - satisfies notability although I accept that references are not as easy to come by, not least as, at the time, the listings for EastEnders in Radio Times were nothing other than a line from the show. Therefore, other plot references are most likely to come from synopses in newspaper listings. Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search only showed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. A redirect may be an WP:ATD if we can agree on a target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Redirect/merge would result in the information contained about a major story arc effectively being totally deleted from Wikipedia, as merge/redirect is another word for delete. Whilst I said before, I accept that the article is overly detailed, I don't see how anything contained in this article can be retained anywhere else.Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - The issue here isn't so much that the article is "overly detailed", its that it fails the WP:GNG. The sources included, not counting those that are official tie in books, are just trivial coverage. Many are nothing but a sentence mention, and at least one does not even mention the location or story arc. How long the story arc ran for does not contribute to passing the WP:GNG, only significant coverage in reliable sources does, and searches are not showing that this topic has that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders was not notified about this, which it should have been. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is clear that, despite me wanting it to be retained, that, as it stands, this article is going to be deleted. However, can I please ask that this article is not deleted today, and instead relisted for another week so that Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders is given the chance to provide any input into this discussion and/or address the reasons why others are advocating for the deletion of this article. Rillington (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  I'd support giving some time to WP:EastEnders. They've done some good work before so I'm curious if they can turn up anything for Dickens Hill. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting upon request. Please realize though that a relisted AFD discussion can be closed at any time. If you want to participate, I'd do so promptly and not assume you have 7 days to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge to several articles if necessary. Much of the development section could probably be merged with Den Watts, while the character sections should be merged with the relevent sections of List of EastEnders characters introduced in 1988, as well as some parts of the development section, the parts that are relevant to each character. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 21:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Having two major problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Angus Ross (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Will have coverage in Scottish newspapers. Competed foryears at the top level of his sport, even if he wasn't successful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If there are sources in Scotland, then at least one containing IRS SIGCOV must be added to the article for this to be kept. Vaguewaving at sources is not a valid option. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have referenced a number of sources below from searching the Google Newspapers archive. In response to your staterment that they must be added to the article for this to be kept I think WP:NEXIST gives a different impression, particularly Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. I do not take this to mean that the sources should be currently in the article for us to vote Keep, since the sources do exist. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There's a trophy named after him [12] as well as Newspaper coverage that does infact exist if we do due diligence [13][14][15][16] Including being a headline [17][18] and was referred to as "the greatest darts player come from the north of Scotland" at his death [19][20], so he is infact referenced in Scottish newspapers. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently located sources would be helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

120 Bahadur

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

Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Could be draftified, or redirected, but please don't delete.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the history it previously was. Creator objected to the draft and moved it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and Ladakh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are announcements and unveiling of the look and is in pre-production with cast and crew not confirmed yet. No significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
You should not bring other pages to discussion on this AFD. Draftify is because the film is too early with no significant coverage and has not made it to post-production. RangersRus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Even this article is covered by the press release, like most articles that are edited by the creator of this article. There is a risk that it may be a COI (I will investigate the case and come back with details).--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it is futile to Draftify this article if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space so I'd like to see some assurances from them about this. A Redirect was also mentioned but it's not clear what the target article would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for keeping the discussion alive

my 3 points

1. with all due respect ' if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space ' is bit harsh, please understand it takes time and effort to create a page, lot more to develop it. i have no issue if a article is deleted or kept in draft but it should always be done after thorough discussion, once consensus is reached why will any one have any problem, certainly not me.

2. regarding this page as I said earlier, agreed that this film is about a year away but so are movies like The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 but all these films have well established pages already, my point is these films are based on fiction where as this film '120 Bahadur' is based on reality and facts, so it deserves a space.

3. as for sources anyone include better sources if anyone can find.

thanks

Bonadart (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Hey, Liz, maybe Excel Entertainment would be a good redirect target. However, regardless of the delete or redirect I would recommend protecting the title due to what you say about someone who is likely going to just remove it and recreate the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see any consensus but I'm not ready to close this as No Consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. We can always simply protect the page in mainspace or require that the draft pass AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there would be complaints for a "requirement" that an editor make use of AFC unless a) there are COI issues or b) the draft is of an article that was deleted through an AFD. There are a lot of experienced editors who view AFC as completely optional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify or Redirect to Excel Entertainment#Upcoming Projects. I believe a redirect will make more sense until more information is provided about the film. Plus, no information about the cast is provided in the article. TNM101 (chat) 11:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies

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

A list of topics related to the Portuguese colonial empire, but only the parts in the East Indies; I see little use for this as a list for navigational purposes when there is already the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} and other methods of finding pages in this topic area. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Portugal. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a fork and is also unnecessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep It helps WP:Readers get to know related topics of the Portuguese Empire in the East| Most readers are not WP:Users they won't know how to use the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolicamaca (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Also there's a difference between "looks like a fork" and being a WP:FORK one must give evidence before falsely claiming that the list is a mirror or fork — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.198.135 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

[1] "Mal estado de vía sería causa de accidente" [Poor road conditions could cause an accident]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 29 December 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[2] "Internan en penal de Chumbivilcas a chofer que causó 42 muertes al volcar bus" [Driver who caused 42 deaths when bus overturned is held in Chumbivilcas prison]. Agencia Peruana de Noticias (in Spanish). 13 May 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[3] "La tragedia que enlutó la Navidad" [The tragedy that darkened Christmas]. Diario Correo (in Spanish). 25 December 2010. Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[4] "Ni empresa de transporte, ni aseguradora reparan a vï¿½ctimas de accidente | La fuga de Guapo Lindo" [Neither the transport company nor the insurance company compensates accident victims | The escape of Guapo Lindo]. El Búho (in Spanish). Retrieved 18 October 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]