Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

12 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 11	November 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Duncan, Indiana

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

Appears to be a rail spot: right now it's overrun by sprawl from Louisville but go back into the 1950s and there's nothing there but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's magazine

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine

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

Page was created by an editor with an initial undisclosed conflict of interest (they have since identified themselves as a paid freelancer), and appears to be solely maintained by that editor (who continues to engage in a business relationship with the organization). Company also fails the notability test. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject seems to have some notability however they lack WP:RS to stand, also the article is not written in an encyclopaedic format. Tesleemah (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comstock's magazine has been published monthly for 35 years. A decade ago its 25 anniversary was [recognized] by Doris Matsui in the United States House of Representatives in 2014. It's been written up in major news outlets including The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento Business Journal, The Fresno Bee and Elko Daily Free Press. The website Newspapers.com brings up 535 mentions of the magazine. The magazine's stories have been cited as sources in at least 30 Wikipedia articles. It's a provisional member of the California News Publishers Association and has won awards from that organization along with the Western Publishing Association. All that together makes it meet the notability requirement. Eric Schucht (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Eric Schucht was the creator of the article, and created it without disclosing himself as a paid contributor to Comstock's, which he has since affirmed. Schucht is not an impartial source, which is one element Wikipedia is supposed to weigh when gauging notoriety. Interesting, while he has since affirmed himself to have a conflict of interest, he chose not to disclose his COI when voting to keep the article. Accordingly, his vote should be discarded. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eric was also reprimanded by a Wikipedia editor for disclosing potentially-revealing information about a Wikipedia editor that, if true, would reveal the identity of said editor, in violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment and anti-doxing policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish clear notability even after discounting the sources that come from the magazine itself. Article is problematic in too many ways, and its creator and primary editor has apparently engaged in some inappropriate shenanigans. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a historic magazine, please judge the notability of the subject, not the editor who created the article. If any COI can be remedied by editing than deletion isn't the best solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perukua

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/GNG.

Apparent WP:GAMENAME of title (phonetic spelling). See [1] and [2] KH-1 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so many albums but does not seem to have much commercial success. Less than 200 Google Search results for Perukua Less than 70 Google Search results for "Peruquois Frances". This is not someone who is especially popular. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Beck

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

No indication of meeting WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional. Tagged as problematic for 11 years. Did release an album Ultrafetter Bass in 2023, which has only barely been able to break 1,000 Spotify plays; also, only has a couple hundred followers on Facebook. (These being indicators of non-notability.) Geschichte (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Searched Google News, got three results of only brief mentions. [3] [4] [5] (last article is paywalled but seems to be more about the band]. Also his band Boppin' B does not have a page here. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellbirds

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

Corresponding to the tag that has been sitting on the page for 11 years, it looks like they completely fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only four news articles on the band, and each only gives them a mention, no in-depth coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema Y

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

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC KH-1 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources covering the company. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - Most of these sources were evaluated in the previous deletion discussion. However, I evaluated them a second time to either confirm that assessment or not.

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.

2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.

3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.

5. LiveMint - Same as 2.

6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.

7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT

8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:ROUTINE. We need sources passing WP:ORGCRIT. Please review that guideline and let me know what sources meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After the source assessment and inquiries about additional sources that may meet WP:ORGCRIT, there is only one I see that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 I am not sure how you are passing some information as routine coverage. In some earlier sources, there was extensive profile coverage of Groww. I am starting to think now that few Wikipedia reviewers has some inherent bias and that is why there is Criticism of Wikipedia, which is also why Wikipedia has been involved in lawsuits:-> https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece

The classification of some credible information as non-reliable is not good. Even then I will provide another source from Business Standard :-> https://www.business-standard.com/companies/start-ups/financial-services-startup-groww-moves-domicile-to-india-from-the-us-124051000028_1.html --Curvasingh (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS certainly does not support your keep !vote contention. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing source assessment by CNMall41 and self evaluation of the sources, it is clear that the page fails WP:NCORP and fails all criteria for an organization to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Editors wanting to Keep this article need to respond to User:CNMall41's source analysis which dismisses most of the sources you thought were valid and reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another ORG article refbombed to pretend to be notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

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

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo[reply]
Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motutapu (disambiguation)

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

Only two link and a lot of redlink. More at Wikipedia:Disambiguation$Deletion. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very premature proposal for a dab page only created an hour ago. Three blue links, and created to combat confusion between them. As to the other red links, they may well be filled soon. Grutness...wha? 06:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could not be solved by one hatnote. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid dab page. PamD 08:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But needs some more blue links added, or redlink-only entries removed. PamD 08:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. B. Deorah College

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found, so the subject fails to meet GNG, and thus also fails WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gauhati University to which this college is affiliated as WP:ATD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to remove this... Goswami21 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is about an institution which is 40 years old. It looks like it does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts and I believe there are various sources available, which can be considered as Significant coverage. It’s just that the creator didn’t try to find and use them as inline citations.Zuck28 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman Pool

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

Entirely non-notable location. I both heavily appreciate CyberTheTiger's work to expand coverage of Madison and think it's really cool, but this specific article – while competently made – falls severely short of notability guidelines. The information in it really would be better served as an attraction on the Wikivoyage page for Madison. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madison, Wisconsin#Parks and recreation as a good ATD; an otherwise average public pool. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solo leveling: Unlimited

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

Insufficient differentiation from parent article Solo Leveling; should be merged into that article. The sources given are also insufficiently reliable and do not prove notability per WP:RS. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Looks like this is a video game? Or a digital business? The crypto-specific websites are bewildering to me, I am not sure what their status would be as RS's. A few of the Korean-language sources are also crypto-focused and therefore probably currently unvetted. Currently, this article is suggesting that the 2018 webtoon is an adaptation, presumably of the 2024 game, which is very odd. Oddities in the writing aside, I'm mostly concerned about the quality of the sources. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the creator attempted to get this article passed as a draft but was turned down each time. Draft:Solo leveling : Unlimited. Eventually, they went ahead and made it into a full article while skipping draft approval. seefooddiet (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Solo Leveling. No differentiable content for it to deserve its own page so a redirect works well enough,

MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chamars

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

The article lacks proper citations and references to support the claims made. Also, some of the member may not belongs to Chamars. Nxcrypto Message 02:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miroshnichenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a PR platform. Refbombed spam for non notable individual. Has a massive primary sourced laundry list of so called awards but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). Last Afd closed no consensus largely on the validity of the Independent Music Awards (IMAs) (now deleted) but they are not a major award and are not even a notable award. None of the many listed charts are GOODCHARTS. Refbombed sources lack independent coverage in reliable sources. Curated by a single SPA who despite being blocked is still updating this PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the International Songwriting Competition confer notability? The article for the award has a few citations to RS calling it "prestigious", mostly the Irish newspaper article... Not sure about notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol 'prestigious' is a word that barely exists outside press releases - if you see it in a news item it's a giveaway that the piece is probably churnalism. Things which are genuinely prestigious (Nobel, Emmy etc.) are never described as 'prestigious'. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is an Irish newspaper? Good to know! ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability here. Other than the 2024 "win", this is still the same quality of biography we saw during the last round at AfD. I've read up a bit more on these "awards", they don't seem terribly important. Nor do most of the charted albums/songs hit on charts that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about Roman Miroshnichenko is included in The Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopedia, edited by Scott Yanow. --Yakudza (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep In duo with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, Roman Miroshnichenko has won the Best Jazz Award of the USA Songwriting Contest: serious world-class achievement mentioned in the top news of All About Jazz - the largest jazz portal in the world. Also, he is a Guinness Records holder, which is more than a notable award. Along with John Williams, Allan Silvestry, and Hans Zimmer, he was the nominee for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Not a big deal, too? He has recorded with the London Symphony at Abbey Road studio, just think for a moment. He is also a Recording Academy/Grammy Voting Member, where only outstanding musicians and experts are allowed. He is the winner of the Film Music Contest, the largest competition in media music in Europe. These are just undeniable facts that can make less fortunate colleagues nervous. All facts are in the public domain.

DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The previous AFD did close a No Consensus which might be the case here, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do agree that the article is very obnoxious and and been refbombed to hell(98 references!?). It could probably use some work to move towards a more neutral view, to read the article would make you think this guy is one of the best musicians in the world. But I do believe he barely passes GNG. Winning the international songwriting competition and the article in The great Jazz guitarists certainly help, although are not too well known. The fact that he has won so many awards speaks to his notability even though most are quite unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winning so many awards speaks more to his entering so many contests and to his skills. Ability does not make one notable unless it receives independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ He has truly made his mark on the music world. Teaming up with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, he recntly won the Best Jazz Award at the USA Songwriting Contest, a big honor that even made headlines on All About Jazz, the world's largest jazz portal. His list of achievements keeps growing: he's a Guinness World Record holder, a Grammy Voting Member, and has even been nomnated for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards alongside John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Hans Zimmer. He's also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra at the iconic Abbey Road Studios and took home the top prize in Europe's biggest media music competition - the Film Music Contest. It's safe to say that Miroshnichenko's accomplishments speak for themselves.
DiscursivePraxis (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not only is voting twice not allowed, editors are not allowed to use block evading socks to vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding 2-3 independent and substantial sources. First, the IMAs web site is no longer in existence, so we can scratch that as a major award. The Global Music Awards are a Pay-Fer award in which everybody seems to win at least bronze, and it runs 4x a year. The HMMA are also pay-fer, and likely self-nomination. The Jazz Corner is a crowd-sourced fan site. Songwriting Competition is another pay-fer. AllAboutJazz site (cited multiple times but not named in citation) allows artists to pay to advertise or have articles about them, for $$. Basically, this guy enters every inexpensive contest, uses all of the available promotion sites. Bravo! as a self-promoter. Lamona (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grasmmy Awards 92.243.182.120 (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the winners and nominees of most of the above awards in article are such world stars as Jason Mraz (USASC), Meghan Trainor (USASC), Al Di Meola (USASC), Ian Anderson (USASC), Gino Vanelli (USASC), Jami Alimorad (USASC), Dave Koz, Paul Wertico, George Benson, Foreigner, Hans Zimmer (HMMA), John Williams (HMMA), Alan Silvestri (HMMA), Carlos Santana (HMMA), Lady Gaga (HMMA). Are they "self-nomintaed" and "pay-fer" too? It is also worth noting that the Grammys also have many self-nominated artists and there is an option to pay for entry from 45 to 150 USD depending on the proximity of the deadline. Most of the above awards are listed on ASCAP's list of the most notable and influential music competitions and awards: ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions

Not to mention the Guinness World Record, the encyclopedia "Great Jazz Guitarists" published by the largest book distributor Hal Leonard and the many celebrities with whom this truly outstanding world-class guitarist performed. (Just a note that this comment was made by User:92.243.182.120. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

The ASCAP page lists "songwriting competitions" which "...provide networking opportunities and inspiration for your work." It says nothing about them being notable, influential, or important. Lamona (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]