User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 07:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Shabana Shajahan Aryan	21 days ago	4	22839	1648.09
Abdali Hospital	16 days ago	1	5620	1524.88
Join Java (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	1	3594	1335.19
Worldwide Attack Matrix	11 days ago	0	2789	1229.31
1M1B	13 days ago	2	9360	1207.01
International Franchise Association (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	2	7146	1182.58
ESNA European Higher Education News	12 days ago	2	3592	1171.5
Abdulsalam Haykal	10 days ago	1	3462	1114.28
Pure (programming language) (3rd nomination)	13 days ago	4	5984	1114.21
Harry M. Rubin	12 days ago	2	7395	1109.97
Pablo Lopez Luz	11 days ago	2	5164	1074.65
Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School	12 days ago	3	15819	1049.9
Collective PAC	9 days ago	1	3426	1040.3
Wayne Simmons (commentator)	11 days ago	3	4490	1029
1xbet	9 days ago	1	13321	1024.38
Temple, Indiana	8 days ago	0	4564	1019.02
Saleh Al Abdooli	10 days ago	2	4242	1015.95
Baloch yakjehti committee	12 days ago	4	14594	1005.18
Fenercell	9 days ago	1	3541	997.1
Uruguayans in Germany (2nd nomination)	8 days ago	0	3831	978.66
Mifflin, Indiana	7 days ago	1	4471	898.96
DXBE-FM	6 days ago	0	2823	884.23
Céphas Bansah	7 days ago	1	4900	882.58
Family Constellations	9 days ago	3	6944	855.26
Shreveport mayoral elections	9 days ago	3	6623	848.97

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: There's a fair amount of (albeit tabloid-esque coverage) in news outlets, indicating some sort of notability. For example, this Times of India article goes in-depth about how she celebrated her birthday. Non-notable people wouldn't get anywhere close to that level of coverage. There's also a whole bunch of stuff about her wedding ([1][2][3][4]). Combined with meeting WP:NACTOR I think notability is met and there should be enough to write an article. C F A 💬 02:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Birthday celebration, giving thanks on instagram and the kind of gift received by spouse, these are not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy notability. The page has no source with indepth coverage on her career. The page needs to be re-written and sourced with reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about, as long as it is significant and about the subject. In this case, I believe WP:BASIC is barely met, and she appears to meet the applicable subject-specific notability guideline (WP:NACTOR). The article is currently a fairly well-written start-class article and is cited to reliable, independent sources. I don't see any issues with the article. What is the point of deleting/draftifying this? C F A 💬 15:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Coverage has to be notable to warrant a page on the subject and coverage like birthday and divorce issues, that are personal life, are not only the kind of coverage needed for a WP:NACTOR. There needs to be significant coverage on her career to be considered a notable actor. This is why I was opting for Draftify so that creator or other editor can find indepth coverage in secondary reliable independent sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:NACTOR is a subject-specific notability guideline that doesn't require the person meet the general notability guideline as well (in my opinion they do, but that's not relevant). As long as they meet any one of the criteria outlined (and it can be verified), they are presumed notable. Now, if they meet a SNG and there isn't enough coverage to write an article, there's a better argument for deletion. In this case, however, an article has been written and appears to be appropriately sourced, so deleting it is kind of pointless. Draftifying is useful for someone who could become notable in the near future but isn't at the moment. As I mentioned, the article has already been written and the subject is notable, so there is no reason to draftify. When more in-depth sources about her career are published, they can just be added to the article in mainspace. C F A 💬 16:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Reply to relist question: I cannot see why this should be moved to draft it she meets WP:NACTOR with 2 verifiable lead roles in notable productions. If other users want to remove content and sources about her private life, they can. If you remove "Aryan" from your search, you find some sources focusing more on her work and confirming her roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Its the indepth coverage on her career that is missing. The subject's career has not (imo) received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability because her roles did not gain significant independent coverage or recognition. Too early still? I did google search for reliable secondary independent source on her career by her name, Shabana Shajahan, but was not able to find any in first two pages. If you find any, can you list them here please? RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Coverage that allows verification of her roles, which is what the SNG requires, is not great but includes https://www.filmibeat.com/tamil/2024/shabana-bids-farewell-to-mr-manaivi-vaanathai-pola-star-debjani-modak-takes-the-reins-392475.html ;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/pavan-and-shabana-starrermr-manaivi-to-go-off-air-soon/articleshow/106371726.cms ; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/etimes-tvs-poll-results-netizens-select-mr-manaivi-as-their-favourite-daily-soap-take-a-look-at-the-other-tv-shows-on-the-list/articleshow/99777465.cms ; https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/tamil/tv-actress/shabana-shajahan/list-of-serial-and-shows -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
But it seems you had already received a reply about that by CFA. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Filmibeat and Nett4u are unreliable sources and the ones from Times Of India are the same sources on the page that I mentioned earlier in my vote that there is no indepth coverage on her career in those sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That's what I said, you have already received a reply about that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Times of India is generally not considered a notability-establishing source because it is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but how many times do you want me to repeat what has been said in the course of this discussion? WP:NACTOR is the applicable guideline and the said sources, including TOI, can be used to verify her roles. I'm leaving it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I recently closed an RfC on TOI and updated the RSPS entry. It now states the following:
Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials—which were first published in TOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware that TOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.
voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

and it also says and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"also says"? Please. It is written in my note. There's no need to repeat and repeat it, bold or not, as if I was trying to ignore it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes it more clear to state what is exactly said that isn't clear or contradicts from what you said. You have made your point and I agree to disagree on the sources you provided. Is there any other source you can find with indepth coverage on her career? If not, we do not need to discuss further and let closer analyze. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been repeated many times, there does not need to be in-depth coverage of her career. She verifiably meets a subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NACTOR, and is therefore notable. End of story. C F A 💬 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For WP:SNG, there is no adequate sourcing and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We dont't have to repeat each other when there is just disagreements. Lets have others weigh in. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be significant coverage, as long as the claim is verified. C F A 💬 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Passes NACTOR with roles in Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: FWIW, additional criteria clearly mentions that 'People are likely to be notable' not necessarily. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: per RangersRus's source analysis. Also SALT this page to prevent it from being published before it's been reviewed. Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. It states: "Such a person may be considered notable" if it meets either of the criteria, not that the person is notable. We need sources that provide significant coverage of the subject so that we can write an encyclopedic article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. Maybe. Unless you did not understand what some of us did say or why they !voted with a reference to the applicable guideline. An actor meeting WP:NACTOR is presumed notable; not necessarily notable but certainly not proven non-notable. Sources allowing to verify the roles are necessary. You have them. And coverage about her private life was not said to be non-significant, it was said not be significantly about her career....it's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. Notability is a spectrum, and, indeed, when you have an actor with two lead roles in notable productions, NACTOR is quite clearly satisfied and their notability is very very highly likely, which this discussion allows to agree (or not) upon. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Presumed notable and Likely notable have very different meanings. 'Presumed' is a more stronger word for an occurance to happen, while 'likely' is a weaker word in comparison. The additional criteria mention 'Likely' and not 'Presumed'.

It's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. - The standards of Indian media regarding the notability of a person are quite poor, which is why people/companies often don't stop at just having their name in the news but instead aim to get their own article on Wikipedia.

I don't believe anyone who has argued above has mentioned that the subject doesn't meet NACTOR criteria, rather they are asking for significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: per User:RangersRus's source analysis. I likewise concur with User:voorts's suggestion salting this mainspace until an approved draft may be completed. I find myself sympathetic to User:Jeraxmoira's assertion regarding standards of media. Entertainment and sports-based churnalism sometimes makes notability discussions of BLPs complicated. Asserting the relative importance of roles without proper citation in RS is pure synthesis. Wikipedia is not People (magazine) or the cultural equivalent elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: I agree with RangersRus's assertions. Draftify is the best thing we can do for now. If, in the future, she gets some good sources with significant coverage, it can be created via AfC. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: Per RangersRus's source analysis. TarnishedPath^talk 01:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Abdali Hospital

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Previously at AFD twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)} so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Join Java

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Worldwide Attack Matrix

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1M1B

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

Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage and proof of notability in the sources used in the article itself, such as the Economic Times, News18, The Hindu, plus the other sources that appear on Google search that are not used on the article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not significant enough, Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep No clear deletion rationale presented by the nominator. Broc (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can keep !voters please address whether this org meets WP:NORG, the relevant guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete To start with, User:Broc's 'speedy keep' vote should be discarded for determining consensus as a vague pretension about the nominator's statement and not addressing notability concerns. [5] appears reliable at first glance but is not due to WP:FORBESCON. The Hindu piece cited by the first 'Keep' vote [6] is largely about the hiring of Telanganu innovators to the organisation.

In terms of sources actually in the article, however, I have presented a {{Source assess table}}. I'm admittedly not familiar with Indian sourcing, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA also causes some difficulty in appropriate source analysis of this organisation, so feel free to chip in to anything I might've missed.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Whoareuagain
https://www.un.org/en/civil-society/1m1b-foundation	The United Nations is an accreditor of the subject.	From my analysis, I do not consider it reliable for this article due to its lack of independence.	The entire article is about the organisation.	✘ No
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-ruchira-kambo-2794024	This article by the Deccan Herald does not appear to fall afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	While not listed at WP:RSN, from my analysis, the Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper from the Karnataka area, and should be considered generally reliable.	This article is mostly about India's envoy to the UN, but the organisation receives a few paragraphs of the article.	✔ Yes
https://thebetterindia.com/133481/bengaluru-students-future-leaders-1m1b-un-new-york/	While the article is written in a rather saccharine tone, the source seems independent from the organisation.	? The author of the article, Sanchari Pal, seems to be a frequent contributor to The Better India, but I'm not able to find any information at all about him online.	The article is mostly about the 14 students going to the UN headquarters and not the organisation itself.	✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-amb-kamboj/articleshow/105675027.cms?from=mdr	The Economic Times is independent of the organisation.	? The Economic Times is the business-oriented wing of the Times of India. Per WP:TOI, the Times has a mixed reliability (somewhere between no consensus and generally unreliable), and I don't see anything indicating why it shouldn't be extended to its business counterpart.	The article is largely a regurgitation of the Deccan Herald article (I suppose there's not much room for differentiation when reporting on that story), but it does have some paragraphs dedicated to the organisation.	? Unknown
https://www.news18.com/news/tech/exclusive-open-safe-accountable-internet-what-is-digital-nagrik-campaign-for-students-young-adults-7172539.html#goog_rewarded	News18.com is independent from the organisation.	The article is mostly just a quotation of the founder's own words, so is unhelpful for determining notability.	Most of the article is dedicated to the subject, aside from a few mentions of Mark Zuckerberg.	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/tech/2020/Jan/23/the-kids-are-artificial-intelligence-right-2093306.html	The New Indian Express is independent of the subject.	? From what I can deduce, the New Indian Express is the southern edition of the Indian Express, which is listed at WP:INDIANEXP as a reliable source. However, I'm not considering it fully reliable because, as with the News18 article, the article is largely quoting off the founder, which obviously decreases its reliability. The article also sounds quite promotional, but that's probably just personal opinion.	The article, while short, is dedicated to the subject.	? Unknown
https://theprint.in/world/indian-youth-activists-changemakers-among-winners-of-diana-awards-in-uk/1649917/	ThePrint is independent of the subject.	The article has a disclaimer at the botton stating, This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.	The organisation is described in a single paragraph, but most of the article is not about the subject.	✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/1m1b-and-government-of-meghalaya-sign-mou-to-set-up-indias-second-green-skills-academy/articleshow/108081430.cms?from=mdr	Most of the article is paywalled for me, but I assume it is independent based off source 4.	? See Source 4	? I am unable to determine SIGCOV because the article is behind a paywall. The article seems to be about the subject, but I can't fully confirm it.	? Unknown
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/1m1b-foundation-to-set-up-green-skills-academy-in-hyderabad/article68300273.ece	Yes	The Hindu is considered generally reliable per WP:THEHINDU.	A large part of the article is paywalled for me, but there are more than two paragraphs dedicated to the subject, which is more than a trivial mention as stated in WP:SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall, the organisation seems to fail NORG, but it's very borderline, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to keeping, especially if some new sources are found. Whoareuagain (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)— Whoareuagain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

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)
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)
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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

ESNA European Higher Education News

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

Nominated on pl wiki for deletion as spam with possible hoax elements (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:17:ESNA European Higher Education News). It also seems to fail WP:NORG/WP:GNG. My BEFORE finds next to zero visiblity for this entity in GS/GB. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Abdulsalam Haykal

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Syria. فيصل (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Only one example of WP:SIGCOV (in The National, here) in a secondary, independent, reliable source, and we'd need more. (Ping me if more are found.) Other sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES such as press releases and interviews or otherwise fail to meet the test of SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Pure (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp×g 🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Harry M. Rubin

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Video games, Entertainment, Games, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is just a CV. No notability. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If deleted Harry Rubin (virologist) should be moved to the base name since Harry Rubin redirects here.--67.70.101.117 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe delete both of them.

Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.

ApLundell (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!

re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.

If we deny this deletion nomination, I can take an action item to improve both pages.P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: See also AFD'ed C. M. Rubin, his partner. IgelRM (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors as the nominator states they didn't mean to nominate this article (so a withdrawal of sorts) but an editor is arguing for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Assuming this is for Harry M. Rubin? Solid keep ... Sam Adams founding is notable + impact in AAA game studios with solid set of citations. Recommend the Harry Rubin (virologist) AFD be posted separately? John.mark1956 (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Not notable and written like a resume. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons I described above. As Liz mentioned above, I think withdrawing this nomination also makes sense. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing sources that rise to the level of the GNG. Which, given the bio, shocks me more than a bit. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Pablo Lopez Luz

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: some coverage of this person [7] and [8]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: López has been covered by artistic scholarship [9][10][11], received media coverage [12], and interviewed [13][14]. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if these new sources satisfy the nominator's concerns. It would also be great if they were added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just to clarify the timeline here, the article was deleted on July 13 after User:N niyaz's PROD expired. User:Auyongcheemeng made an undeletion request, saying this is one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia, and the request was fulfilled on July 17, restoring the article. The PROD tag was correctly removed by an admin as part of the undeletion process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bsoyka Unfortunately being 'one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia' does not explain its failure in satisfying WP:GNG. For your information, there are thousands of schools that predates Malaysia's independence. And unless this school is a high achieving school which is rare, I don't see the school showing any significance. N niyaz (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It was not that few for the number of schools during that time. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is one example a mission school set up by missionaries in the early days in pre-Malaysia days, not that 'rare' yes, but they are getting there. In the current and foreseeable future of political climate and increasing Islamisation of Malaysia the number of these type of schools are on the decline (462 nationwide, 227 in peninsular Malaysia in 2011 ^[1] down to 420 nationwide, 191 in peninsular Malaysia in 2024 ^[2]. [Not that many of these schools have wiki pages written]. These schools have contributed in the Malaysia's early days as a nation to produce current and former leaders/notable persons. [Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School] is no exception (see its list of alumni). Not many schools among the 10,000+ currently operating schools in Malaysia can attest to that. Bukit Bintang Girls' School (also was a mission school, but sadly no longer exists) a sister school involved in its founding of BBBSS has its wiki page preserved.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I still stand by my earlier reasoning for this page to remain, being: historical and a pre-Malaysia school that has contributed to the early nation-building.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The facts of significance you provided deserve a place at article such as Education in Malaysia instead of this school. The school is not inherent of notability because it has early contribution to humanities as a missionary establishment per WP:ORGSIG. The school is not inheritable of notability because it has notable alumni per WP:INHERITORG.

Issue with this article is the history and other notable events sections fails to WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources. Other part could be just WP:MILL content. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sections that doesn't have verifiable/sources should be removed those cases, not an outright entire page removal. It doesn't help the case that the name "Bukit Bintang" is extremely SEO unfriendly as a casual web search with those terms will refer to "Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur" the tourist spot, instead of the school. There are sources out there but they aren't electronic accessible/one dead trees for the most part/or buried in older web archives.C.M. Au Yong (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is just barely some digital traces that remain to this day, eg. mentioned in passing: BBBS & BBGS as major mission schools in the country in its day^[3]. C.M. Au Yong (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume removing them would leave nothing much left. A search at https://search.nlb.gov.sg/onesearch/Search?query=%22bukit+bintang+boys%22&cont=newspaper showing newspapers but irrelevant to article. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Being a mission school does not address the issue whatsoever, 420 or 191 is a big number to start with. Some of the sources cited in the article are also press releases and/or paid materials. And for your information, the enwiki is not for personal blogging and since it is the most spoken language it should be more stricter than mswiki. N niyaz (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Mission schools in Malaysia". The Edge Malaysia. Retrieved 2024-07-23.
^ "Directory of Christian Mission Schools in Malaysian (2024)" (PDF). Federation of Christian Schools Malaysia. Retrieved 2024-07-23.)
^ ""A Christian's response to ACIS seminar — Stephen Ng"". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2024-07-24.

Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear more opinions. Also, editors, please sign all of your comments in an AFD discussion so that other editors know whose opinion they are. We shouldn't have to look at the page history to find this out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

(420 or 191) Of that number not many have wikipedia pages (see List of missionary schools in Malaysia), the ones that do is rather incomplete/or not much to begin with (like Ong Kai Jin, has mentioned, not "much left"). They all need significant work. As for personal blogging comment (I have been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware of that, far longer than both of you persons commenting), I agree that some edits need not be in there. (I believe that's because of the comments, asking for school news updates on the article's talk pages).

Remember that most of these school wiki pages are likely came to be/created/edited by students or staff (during their years there). They likely don't monitor the pages unless they are a frequent/semi-frequent contributor with an up-to-date account on Wikipedia, If they aren't regulars they are even more so unaware of Wikipedia's editing/writing article standards. (So that's a really low bar to getting school articles deleted without much contest)

The school's article certainly does not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of 'notability', as it does not have easily verifiable records in the digital age. There hasn't been much coverage on the school in recent years.

I have said all I wanted despite the school's lack of notability according to WP:GNG, the school is notable to the general public in its time of founding among other notable schools of its time along the likes of Victoria Institution, Methodist Boys' School, Kuala Lumpur and should remain like its sister school Bukit Bintang Girls' School. As the school's alumni, I'll say, "Nisi Dominus Frustra". I'm done here, there is only so much one person can do to convince anyone. C.M. Au Yong (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I say that the newspapers of English-medium and Malay-medium in the country lacked representing voice on the development of the schools. See WP:SBEXT. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

First, your account although older than ours, your sole purpose of creating that account is to edit the article mentioned which most probably means you have a WP:COI. Also notability CAN NOT be brief, unless the subject receives significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per my standards at User:Bearian/Standards. Specifically, it’s over 65 years old, has several major alumni, and otherwise passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Very weak keep. Limited coverage but Douglas and Pederson, andRoxborough et al, and the Star push it over the line. Plus I am guessing there are sources in Malay and/or Chinese I don't have the ability to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A search of “武吉免登男中” OR “武吉免登国中” OR “武吉免登中学” on Google showed some newspapers in Chinese mentioning the school but did not discuss on the school,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] and this newspaper in Malay also.^[7] Ong Kai Jin (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "人民力量接投诉．国中仍发《连环扣》". 星洲日报 [Sin Chew Daily] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2012-01-08. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ "杨美盈：征地包括灵17区及19区排屋．促公布金白大道路线详情". 星洲日报 [Sin Chew Daily] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2014-03-19. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ "灵市长:推广环保清洁放眼30%市民参与3R". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-10-07. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ 刘, 佩明; 卢, 淑敏 (2021-09-20). "雪18岁以下快来接种 MSU中心至23日为27校服务". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ "◤新冠又一年◢ 雪18岁以下快来接种 MSU中心至23日为27校服务". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2021-09-20. Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ 张, 慧慈 (2023-11-08). "推介《护航行动》经费补助计划　林鸿泰：鼓励更多学生学习华文". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-06.
^ Razali, Safeek Affendy (2016-02-28). "Dua mati, 2 parah kes serangan kumpulan kongsi gelap". BH (newspaper) (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-05.

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
!Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Both editors should refrain from casting aspersions on each other. WP:SPI is where you should inquire about potential sockpuppery, please keep accusations out of AFD discussions which should focus on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. We need more editors to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I just noticed that the page I edited the infobox of last year was nominated for deletion. Honestly it surprised me because it is one of the most well-written and well-balanced pages in the betting category here on Wikipedia. It excludes any advertisement - as I can see through the history log, the page was violated numerous times by ill-intended users who tried to put their agenda here by placing wrong links in the website link section or tried to put false and poorly referenced information. All these attemps were reverted again and again despite unhealthy attention from the "attackers" - page has been in semi-protection 2 or 3 times as I can see through the history.

Current state of the page has a lot of unreferenced information as well - as someone who did some editing on this article before, I can try and add some resources to the information I can find here (mainly the infobox, controversies and sponsorship section).

Another thing that surprised me was that the initial edit here removed some of the well-referenced (and new) parts of the sponsorship section. These things are easily found on the web and are covered thoroughly by different resources since it is concerns big football clubs and the leagues in Europe.

I believe that under the Wiki rules 1XBET article doesn’t alter from other betting-related pages (especially the ones about the brands and companies), yet still it was nominated for deletion.

In the coming days I will try to add references here and add up-to-date information, removing false or made-up parts of it. HanStark (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added some resources to the page. Also I've tried to add some up-to-date information regarding betting deals, will try to find more information about the company that can be added in the general information section about the company's history.

Hope my input can help the wiki admins. HanStark (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Temple, Indiana

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

The cited history calls this Temple Station, which is what it looks like. I'm not seeing evidence it ever actually developed into a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment
- A. Temple seems to have gotten "Temple" platted at least in the 1920s.
- It's on this 1950 census map.
- Post office applications in 1903 and 1933 just reiterate that it was between English and Marengo. One of the PO applicants was A. Temple.
- This history suggests it was on a historic road of pioneer days, and later supported a school and a church.

jengod (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Jengod, is this a vote to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete, along with all the other articles on unincorporated places. What is the point of these? If anyone thinks they are worth having at all, could they not be moved to a new article List of unincorporated places, with appropriate sub-headings Indiana etc.?
Pinging User:Jengod since I neglected to in my relisting statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Liz thanks for the ping. it's definitely not a keep vote. I love expanding geo-stubs and ghost towns articles to save them from deletion, but this one has a vanishingly thin trail, and is probably not encyclopedic, but I just don't have any enthusiasm for it either way. If someone wanted to improve it, maybe those links could help? I'm an inclusionist for the most part so my personal bar to actively vote delete is very high. jengod (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Saleh Al Abdooli

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

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Available sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or WP:PRESSRELEASE-based news articles. The only example of independent WP:SIGCOV I found is here, and we would need multiple examples to clear WP:GNG. Not seeing a separate pass on WP:NBIO. If additional sources are found, please ping me to evaluate and reconsider. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge. As Dclemens1971 wrote above, there are some mentions, such as this one. They are mostly about his role in Etisalat though, so a merge with that article makes sense to me. --Alan Islas (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Baloch yakjehti committee

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

~~Merge with Mahrang Baloch~~~~: or Baloch Long March. This organization itself may not satisfy SIGCOV~~ — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The Baloch Long March was a past and single event, so it cannot represent the whole BYC. See my comment and the VoA and Al Jazeera sources as justification below. Balochpal (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete or Merge: Fails WP:GNG as many sources listed are from unreliable news sites (some of which I've removed) and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Would also support content worth merging to Baloch Long March Axedd (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It does meet GNG; the sources just aren't in the article.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://www.dawn.com/news/1845830/baloch-yakjehti-committee-postpones-sit-in-after-agreement-with-govt	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://theprint.in/world/pakistan-baloch-yakjehti-committee-establishes-central-organising-body-mahrang-baloch-chosen-central-organiser/2131286/	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://m.thewire.in/article/south-asia/a-baloch-national-gathering-against-enforced-disappearances-and-human-rights-abuses/amp	Listed on WP:NPPSG as generally reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.geo.tv/latest/556473-baloch-yakjehti-committee-sit-in-enters-third-day	~ Listed on WP:NPPSG as "leaning towards reliable"	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.newsx.com/world/baloch-yakjehti-committee-to-run-endbalochgenocide-campaign-against-pakistan-atrocities/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/byc-urges-rights-body-to-intervene-amid-escalating-abuses-in-balochistan20240724190635	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/baloch-yakjehti-committee-criticises-pakistan-for-atrocities-against-people-of-balochistan/articleshow/111632036.cms	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.lokmattimes.com/international/baloch-yakjehti-committee-steps-up-efforts-for-national-gathering/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That is a source assessment based on significant coverage by major news outlets. Even if we discount the non-listed or no-consensus sources, there are still three reliable sources that offer significant coverage. They just need to be added to the article when it is rewritten. C F A 💬 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources like ANI and Times of India are not reliable for the topic. WP:RSPANI Look here for further information. Any India related news site is unreliable when it comes to political topics about Pakistan as the govt has vested interest involved. Other sources do exist but they fail to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as of now. Axedd (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I marked them as "No consensus" on the chart above. There are still at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of the organization, which shows that it meets WP:NORG. We can't say something fails GNG just because other unreliable sources happen to have also covered the topic. C F A 💬 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per user:CFA. Plus, also check other sources like VoA, Al Jazeera, ABC News, etc as they also mention the BYC. Additionally, please fix the capitalization in the article title (with B, Y and C in capital letters).Balochpal (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Balochpal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello user:CFA. Can you add the above recent sources, plus Amnesty International, Arab News and The Diplomat, to your table as well? They need to be added to the article also. Balochpal (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom as the article fails WP:GNG and is already covered in the Baloch Long March. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: as per the Voice of America, a reliable and authentic source, the Baloch Long March was a past event, not a present event, that happened months ago. (The Al Jazeera news doesn't event mention the long march when discussing the BYC). How would you use it to cover the broader topic of the whole BYC? VoA: Late last year, BYC led a 1,600-kilometer march to Islamabad with families awaiting the return of their loved ones gone missing in the fight between the state and Baloch separatists. Protesters faced severe police action as they tried to enter the capital. Demonstrators, braving the cold for days, eventually left after authorities warned of an imminent security threat. Balochpal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The coverage provided by CFA is sufficiently convincing to meet the GNG, so I propose that we keep this article. At the very least, it should be merged with Mahrang Baloch rather than being deleted entirely. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I would not agree with merging as the BYC is a significant political movement and the article on BYC has room for expansion using the existent reliable sources. Yes, Mahrang Baloch is one main leader, but the BYC also has other well-known leaders, like Sammi Deen Baloch, as well as many male leaders. Balochpal (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Balochpal, You don't need to respond to every comment. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I think there is a conflict of interest due to the name of the deletion subject and the word before pal in their name Felicia (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Felicia, I have no conflict of interest. My involvement is purely to ensure accurate representation of the BYC, based on verifiable sources (e.g., Dawn, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The Diplomat, Amnesty International, etc). Balochpal (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Fenercell

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

Notability is not found; there are also no reliable sources Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Is only a redirect in the Turkish Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K. as per WP:ATD, sourcing fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Only the first 2 sentences are about Fenercell; the remainder is about Avea (now part of Türk Telekom) and a broad discussion about mobile networks in Türkiye. In that state, it would have been better titled as Avea. Or reduced to a 2 sentence stub on Fenercell, which would sit with the redirect on the tr.wiki article. Regarding the "Fenercell" branding, that uses other providers such as A1 Telekom Austria Group elsewhere [16]. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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!} 07:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Mifflin, Indiana

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

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [17] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [18] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  - That article alone would suggest a WP:GEOLAND pass. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, per the source I linked above and WP:GEOLAND.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

DXBE-FM

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

No evidence this radio station passes WP:NCORP. Sources are unreliable or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with the nom that none of the references in the article pass WP:NORG/WP:ORGIND. The best is the Sun Star reference but that is still just an interview. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE either. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Céphas Bansah

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

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject. He has been given significant coverage by plenty of German sources: documentary film King Bansah and His Daughter, Der Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Das Parlament, The Local, Die Rheinpfalz, Mannheimer Morgen, Lausitzer Rundschau, Deutsche Handwerks Zeitung, and Goethe-Institut

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep per StellarHalo Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Family Constellations

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

It has been some time since I have seen an article so thin as this. An amalgamation of a lot of ideas of Bert Hellinger ~~who may be notable in his own right~~ (edit: I decided that he is not notable either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger) but this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice beyond the typical "don't fall for scams" notes and some poorly-considered publications with basically no citations. If we were to remove all the WP:CRUFT, we would be left with a simple statement that "Family Constellations is Bert Hellinger's attempt to do therapy." That's all that I can see sourced properly. Not suitable for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, there has been some research evaluating the effectiveness of Family Constellation method, so I'd disagree with the statement that "this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33528854/

I do agree that the article needs a thorough re-working. Zlmark (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Family Process is a particularly good journal to establish notability. In particular, I note that the current EiC is a professor at a for-profit college Alliant International University and the stated goals of the institute that publishes the journal seem to be aligned more with resume padding at least in terms of rhetoric. Perhaps more troubling, the final author (usually the spot reserved for the PI) is heavily conflicted in producing this research [19] and that goes uncommented on in the paper. jps (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't have enough time to spend with this to actually cast a vote, but I'm a bit skeptical that deletion would be the best outcome here. This seems to have generated a great deal of attention over the years, particularly in German. I found hundreds of passing mentions in a quick search (including in e.g. the NYT and the New Yorker), which to me suggests that sourcing likely exists to support a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to the "great deal of attention in German"? I checked through the NYT and New Yorker sources and was not particularly impressed with them as a means to argue for an entire article to be written.

What I am failing to find are sources which deal with the subject independent of boosterism. jps (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:Notability, although there is room for improvement, the article seems to have extensive coverage, and the reasoning provided by the OP is largely unconvincing. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments - in agreement with Suriname0, there does seem to be some potential sources, but I have neither the time nor energy to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Per Wolverine XI. ADifferentMan (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Tons of interwiki links, de:Familienaufstellung is quite a substantial article: The topic has spawned research and new developments, even if its origins are only pseudoscientific. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

2022 Shreveport mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:

2022 Shreveport mayoral election
2018 Shreveport mayoral election
2014 Shreveport mayoral election
2010 Shreveport mayoral election
2006 Shreveport mayoral election
2002 Shreveport mayoral election
1998 Shreveport mayoral election
1994 Shreveport mayoral election
1990 Shreveport mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist^talk 02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Your argument against deletion seems to emphasize its inherent importance (WP:ITSIMPORTANT). However, on Wikipedia, importance is determined by significant, independent coverage, and unfortunately, there isn't a rule that makes municipal elections automatically notable.

If you want to merge these all into a list (mayoral elections in Green Bay, Wisconsin), I would be fine with that, but for now, we have an unmaintainable mess of hundreds of these mayoral elections without explaining their significance. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana. Other than the 2022 article, the articles are only sourced to primary sources and mostly about candidates without stand-alone articles. The additional coverage of Adrian Perkins and the 2022 election is likely because of editor interest rather than availability of sourcing. And the sources for 2022 are just WP:MILL coverage of candidate entries, endorsements, and results. List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana is the only plausible redirect target; it seems reasonable enough as an alternative to deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Week keep per bluefist, articles have a decent amount of coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

[1] "Mission schools in Malaysia". The Edge Malaysia. Retrieved 2024-07-23.

[2] "Directory of Christian Mission Schools in Malaysian (2024)" (PDF). Federation of Christian Schools Malaysia. Retrieved 2024-07-23.)

[3] ""A Christian's response to ACIS seminar — Stephen Ng"". www.malaymail.com. Retrieved 2024-07-24.

[4] "人民力量接投诉．国中仍发《连环扣》". 星洲日报 [Sin Chew Daily] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2012-01-08. Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[5] "杨美盈：征地包括灵17区及19区排屋．促公布金白大道路线详情". 星洲日报 [Sin Chew Daily] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2014-03-19. Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[6] "灵市长:推广环保清洁放眼30%市民参与3R". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-10-07. Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[7] 刘, 佩明; 卢, 淑敏 (2021-09-20). "雪18岁以下快来接种 MSU中心至23日为27校服务". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[8] "◤新冠又一年◢ 雪18岁以下快来接种 MSU中心至23日为27校服务". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2021-09-20. Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[9] 张, 慧慈 (2023-11-08). "推介《护航行动》经费补助计划　林鸿泰：鼓励更多学生学习华文". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-06.

[10] Razali, Safeek Affendy (2016-02-28). "Dua mati, 2 parah kes serangan kumpulan kongsi gelap". BH (newspaper) (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Retrieved 2024-08-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]