Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 18	July 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No reason given for moving to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Skyshiftertalk 10:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 global IT outages

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

This needs to be moved to draftspace [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. No reason by the nominator was given and this is a serious and global issue which is being reported by the media worldwide. We can decide later on if we need to delete it if it is not notable (see WP:RUSHDELETE). ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As long as the article's subject is notable, and the content is fine, there is no reason to delete the article. Gust Justice (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As it is a current ongoing event, it is better to keep the article while simultaneously updating the article. Note that I will also support this argument on every future ongoing events, whether it’s an assassination attempt, terrorist event, or even massive global affecting IT outage. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly a major, global story. Why on earth has this been nominated for deletion? I'm tired of people constantly nominating stuff that's obviously notable! Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A major event caused by CrowdStrike, just like the assassination attempt days ago. AnimMouse (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving to draft would likely lead to the contents being added to CrowdStrike's corporate profile so reducing its effectiveness. Thincat (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly a major global event, where many countries were affected. This should remain in article space. Procyon117 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germania destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:V.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.

This is a WP:V failure because none of these sources are from July 2018, but this is par for the course for these articles. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Germany. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC is not relied on here, and WP:NOT is not the only grounds for deletion either - you've been on here long enough to know that the sourcing for this article is failing. Hell, we've both canned enough articles for having exactly this kind of sourcing. FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just Germania's route map in list form, and we aren't supposed to be a directory of airline destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Fisher Jr.

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

Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Entertainment, and Illinois. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he doesn't surpass WP:NOPAGE, then an WP:ATD is a redirect to 100th Illinois General Assembly. Ultra-short term politicians certainly have the capacity to be notable (see List of members of the United States Congress by brevity of service, for instance), so that argument alone isn't enough. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the topic and the available recent citations, I'm not even sure that that would be the best target. Following the nominator's argument that the political stint isn't notable, the best target would therefore be List of Jeopardy! contestants. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best^[a] WP:THREE so far:
1. Cuevas, Jailene (July 16, 2024). "Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings takes 'cheap shot directed' at Illinois contestant and former senator". The Mirror US. Daily Mirror.
2. Lusk, Darian (18 July 2024). "Jeopardy! champ Jay Fisher nabs 3rd win despite 'unfairly difficult' last rounds". The U.S. Sun. The Sun.
3. Holmes, Martin (18 July 2024). "'Jeopardy!' Champ Jay Fisher Reveals Shocking Connection to Elvis Presley". TV Insider.

Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today,^[b] there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.

Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL. The brevity of the term seems to me to make him more notable, not less (it's unusually short). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. The coverage of him as a Jeopardy champ is just the cherry on top. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MicrobiologyMarcus. Subject passes WP:NPOL, and arguably WP:GNG as well. Sal2100 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."
^ While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

Keep - the presumption is strong to keep state legislators’ articles, and in any case, he has had significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Antalya

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

I've already copied the introduction into the Antalya article. This is a short article that doesn't have much scope for expansion as a stand alone article. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many book references are available on this topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, I'm sure tourists travel there, but coverage isn't strictly about that. [1] or [2] are vaguely about the concept. We'd need OR to bring the article together, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Antalya#Economy should be expanded to have a tourism section that can include a list/description of major destination and split when necessary. This is just bullet points of coastal municipalities in the city. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - it may be that an article could be written on this topic, but the current stub isn't any sort of attempt at that, and it says nothing that isn't now available at Antalya. Delete with possibility of re-creation.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore–Spain relations

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

This article is based on primary sources, including mostly from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Singapore, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The only non-government sources I could find for this were 1 and 2 They focus exclusively on the economic relations between Spain and Singapore, and I don't think they constitute stand alone notability, as most of the content of those sources speaks in the larger context of EU-Singapore relations. I might suggest redirecting to Singapore-European Union relations. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Yilloslime (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term plus Singapore-European Union relations makes no mention of Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local coverage, such as what has been added here thus far, is usually not permitted for organizations per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think we need to hear from more editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in the page for a pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:AUD local coverage such as the Ozarks First, Ozarks Sports Zone, and a local radio station (the three sources in the article currently) does not establish notability under WP:NORG for any of these sports leagues. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AUD says news coverage must be regional - which is what the "Ozarks" news sources are. GuyBanks (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Familial relationships of Errol Musk

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

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

He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Ah I missed that, but that was a local city council. None of the people in my city council have wikipedia pages. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be great if there is a comparison on how vocal he was compared to the famous Helen Suzman. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep*: He is an antiracist fighter AND elected representative AND father of Elon Musk - this 3 together is enough for a wikipedia page. 2A00:1110:143:1160:D1BF:A9E6:C3C3:862D (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to prove this? "Trust me, bro" isn't quite what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor's comment obviously shows a deep unfamiliarity with AFD, but sourcing in the article does substantiate that Errol Musk was prominent leader then-embryonic anti-Apartheid movement. Feoffer (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous to have an article about someone's "familial relationships" without giving him his own article. Astaire (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP:

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Ergzay (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP absolutely applies to ALL articles, I just meant we shouldn't be covering a notable abuser on one of their victim's biographical articles. Feoffer (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Engineering, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)

The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got 4 different BLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.

An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.

I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this feedback.

I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what people "deserve". Please read WP:RGW. Astaire (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?

Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including that content with that justification is a WP:OR issue, unless reliable sources explicitly note the contradiction themselves. Astaire (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Plenty of notable source material for an article about the man more so than his "relations", especially since Musk Family got effectively yeeted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Errol Musk - Numerous sources discuss his own life, so that his bio would easily pass GNG. Surely his son's fame directed attention to him, just like Maye Musk, Kimbal Musk and Tosca Musk; we've got plenty of coverage for those individuals as well, who arguably wouldn't be notably featured in the press if Elon's life hadn't attracted so much scrutiny. Ironic that notability is not inherited, though in this case the hyper-notability of one person did engender notability of various family members... — JFG ^talk 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify with instructions to either make the article titled Errol Musk, or Family of Elon Musk. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also fine with keeping this at Errol Musk, and either splitting the "family" material to a new article, or removing it. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is a blunt tool. We can't close a discussion with editing instructions. That's left to editors if the article is Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't a notable topic, but some of the content could be saved for a different topic. The only "blunt" option available is to draftify it until that tension is resolved. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Errol Musk. I think there is probably enough written about him in RS to satisfy WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Moving is an editorial act that will be discussed if an article is Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  AFDs end with consensus to Merge all the time. Feoffer (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feoffer, I know this, I close a lot of AFD discussions. The editor did not say Merge they said Move and that's what I Was responding to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're being specific Errol Musk is currently a redirect to this page... So what is the functional difference between a merge, a rename, and a move? To me they're all the same and you need to take that into consideration if you do end up closing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Despite the bizarre title, this a biography in all but name. There was a strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Musk that this wasn't worthy of a standalone article. Per WP:INVALIDBIO That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "strong consensus" but the link says "The result was redirect to Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability." which doesn't add up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person and also a father of a notable person Is la🏳️‍⚧ 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep and move to Errol Musk. He's notable for his career in business and politics as well as his noteworthiness in the news. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this person is that important, they can have their own article. Don't remove the deletion tag on the article either; I've restored it. Most sources are about Elon and even use him in the title; there's maybe one source that's vaguely about Errol. Famous by association isn't what we're looking for. The familial relationships of a non-notable individual are not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Errol Musk. Errol Musk is notable, you don't inherit notability but becoming notable or more notable because you are someone's father is not inheriting notability as its understood for wikipedia's purposes its just notability. Even if you want to say that Errol gets signficant coverage because Elon is his son (or Maye Musk is his ex-wife, she was notable before Elon was ever born... Or because of his two other notable kids... Or are they all inherited notability from Maye? Or do we go one step further... If this is the road we're on why is Maye's notability not inherited from Joshua N. Haldeman?) he does get signficant coverage independent of Elon and other notable family members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Family of Elon Musk (which bizarrely points to Musk (disambiguation), despite describing a discrete topic), and add some lines on the rest of the notable family members there. For comparison, see Family of Barack Obama, Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower. BD2412 T 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, the article at a similar page title was converted to a Redirect at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was clearly a wrong outcome, and one that can be righted by a right outcome here. "Family of Elon Musk" pointing to a disambiguation page is nonsensical. It is not an ambiguous phrase. It is also inherently misleading, as there are people related to Elon Musk whose surname is not "Musk", and who should never be listed on a disambiguation page for the word. BD2412 T 03:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem ideal. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Family of Elon Musk as suggested by BD2412. Fixes multiple problems. Cuts the Gordian knot cleanly and in a fashion which rhymes with previous high-profile outcomes. That the page creator is fine with it is a bonus. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K-rupt

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO as search turns up barely two pages of local coverage of his death with next to nothing about his music. No notable discography, chart activity or awards over the course of his brief career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: basically no coverage apart from his death, which is not enough for reliability, although will probably change my vote if the claims for a single being charted can be sourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, India, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NCORP, also appears to violate WP:SOAPBOX. ADifferentMan (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

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

No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.

But with the article at 2,614 bytes (a stub to end all stubs), merge vs. deletion is a difference without a distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy per comments of SecretName101 and others. A standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the earlier comments. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we decide to delete this Article, Wikipedia could face bias allegations. Think about it: Joe Biden's Campaign had (before he stepped out of the race) an Article, Kamala Harris has one, Donald Trump has one, Jill Stein has one, Cornel West has one, RFK Jr., and so on. Is it fair to not have one for this campaign? No, it isn't. This campaign DOES have notability. Here's just one example of such coverage: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/constitution-party-randall-terry-election-2024-00154790. Currently, the Constitution Party is on the ballot in over 12 states. Why shouldn't it's Presidential candidate get an Article? - Avishai11 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHER and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Randall Terry. Media outlets do not seem to consider his campaign especially notable. Just because someone makes the ballot doesn't automatically mean their campaign deserves a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignore the usual shrieking about bias. We cover what reliable sources cover. This page is useless, his 2024 "campaign" should be mentioned at his BLP, nothing more. Don't think a redirect is necessary as it is unlikely to be a common search term. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into his article. I’m not swayed by allegations that we’d be accused of favoritism. It’s literally the top bad argument in AfD. Think of the children and no true Scotsman and all that are just another logical fallacy out of many. We’re a private charity, not a public benefit. As of now, there are no reliable sources; that includes Politico, which is just a fancy blog. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaine Kennedy

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [3] [4] [5] Tau Corvi (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Speedway_related_sources. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the "Notable riders," most of them use "speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)

Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per suggestions by C679. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Minimal significant coverage, no real claim of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This BLP lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get an actual assessment of sources brought up in this discussion rather than general statements about the article lacking sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the 3 sources brought up are not independent as discussed in reliable sources. The article subject still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found some independent sources about this rider which deal with an under-21 world championship [6], Australian national youth championships [7] and even club championship in Australia [8]. There are more but I didn't go into much detail with the search. C 679 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Glasgow times article seems run of the mill, speedway riders crash all the time. I wouldn't regard fullnoise.com.au [9] as an independent source. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, I am just stating that there is independent coverage of this person out there, which you cited as the main issue with the page at the outset. C 679 05:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sources presented after the second relist suggest a better-attended AfD would have likely resulted in a Keep, but I see no point in extending this, if deletion is off the table. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 02:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's actually quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS for this organization, which has received news coverage for its activity on many issues, including local minimum wage mandates (NBC News, CBS News, Entrepreneur, Reuters), joint employer laws/regulation (NYTimes, Wall St. Journal, Entrepreneur, home health aide employment (NYT ed board), IFA's data partnership with the Census Bureau (NBER) -- plus academic articles in Enterprise and Society and Competitiveness Review, and items in the Business Journals and BisNow. Altogether, I see a pass of WP:NORG that didn't exist at the time of the last AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Berryhill

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

Found no coverage of the artist beyond the one MusicRow article already present. Passing mentions for credits on notable musicians' songs does not make notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this audio-only interview with New England radio station WROR, but even then it's not enough for notability. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 11:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG criteria and not enough RS coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet

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

Neutral nomination. Bringing here for consensus after disputed draftification and re-creation at Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet (2024) by a number of socks. Not alleging libra is a sock, but this needs resolution in one direction or the other as the current situation is not sustainable. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will withhold my vote for now, until I make sure if it meets the GNG or not. But it's worth noting that the article on this topic has been created multiple times by socks of our prolific WP:PE Nauman335 and if this is also a case of UPE, it would be a clear violation of WP:TOU. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama: for now, as a compromise; but opposed to deletion given coverage on production; bylined review: [10]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC) or Keep given the other bylined review in a notable media, added recently with other sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Redirection make sense, to me as well. By the way, do I need to reiterate that youlinmagazine is not a RS and should not be used to meet the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You can reiterate what you wish, but there is absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable and it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined (:D) source for verification about the content of the program, in the present case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So what if there's no consensus for Youlin yet? Sometimes one should Ignore all rules and use WP:COMMONSENSE because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And indeed it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined Who said one can't use it? However, I mentioned that one cannot use it to justify GNG, especially since the author of this review piece is a guest contributor with merely two published articles under their by-line. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama although it received coverage but being a creator of this article, i dont want to entertain socks as the page is badly infected by socks just after its creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to, List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama as topic on lack it's notability and cited sources clearly not yet shown the notability to standa_lone.223.123.11.155 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pilish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadae

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

Another incredibly niche subgenre of poetry, actually I can't really see the difference between this and Pilish, which I have also nominated for deletion. The sources do not seem to be significant coverage from reliable sources. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Mathematics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two sentences into Pilish as another example of pi-constrained writing; I can't find refs for cadae as a form beyond those already given. Adam Sampson (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the fib (another mathematics-inspired form of poetry), the cadae seem to have little notability outside of being examples for Pilish, so I think merging there (or, should that end up being merged, Piphilology) is fine. Certainly the term should not be a red link. —Kusma (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: cadae seems to be merely an example of pilish, and has near to none specific coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrew and the redirect vote was striked out. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Henson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources utilized all lack independence from the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jim Henson Company -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - I have added a number of news articles covering Henson. These include coverage of her being named president of The Harvard Lampoon, work at Warner Bros., and Columbia Pictures.^[1]^[2]^[3] The articles date back to 1982, and are an indication of significant coverage that spans multiple years, well before she became CEO of the Jim Henson Company. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The three New York Times sources added by DaffodilOcean clearly provided enough SIGCOV on the subject person and satisfied GNG, not to mention her numerous executive producer roles which should fulfill WP:CREATIVE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear meets SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would withdraw but we have a vote for a redirect. I support keeping the article based on the excellent sourcing improvements made to the article. Thanks to all who worked on it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

Keep: Since nomination, many reliable sources have been added to the article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."

[2] While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

[:1-3] Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[:2-4] Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[5] Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]