Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 15	September 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2028 Northern Territory general election

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article only has one source, and it does not say anything about the election in 2028. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thought about a redirect but I really couldn't find a suitable target. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Northern Territory Legislative Assembly maybe? otherwise yeah delete Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Next Northern Territory general election. No point in deleting the page when it will only need to be remade again. Viatori (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Next Northern Territory general election or keep, for the same reasons as Viatori. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends League Cricket

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a deleted article following this AfD. Apparently because the wording and WP:REFBOMBS are different, it cannot be a G4 speedy... Non-notable, just as it was a month and a bit ago, with WP:REFBOMBS and no establishment of WP:GNG. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't mean notability is inherited. Coverage within the refbombs is routine. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I previously commented that the page should not be deleted because this is known cricket league. And In this all are international cricket players. And this is the main page of league not season page and also old league. I think it should be not be deleted because a lot of news references are available.
PQR01 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually contribute at the last AFD (at least not as this logged in user). But WP:NOTINHERITED applies- just because notable people compete, that doesn't make this event notable. If you didn't like that it was deleted, WP:Deletion review would have been the proper process, not re-creating the article and thus forcing another AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the previous comment PQR01 is referring to is on the talk page of the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Oman, Qatar, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legends League Cricket. Nothing has changed in the 1 month since the last AFD, and re-creating an article after a clear AFD consensus like this is just disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sockpuppet investigation here, as I am sure many, if not all, of these accounts are linked. AA (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above rationale. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the league is quite notable as it's the most watched league in India after IPL as per BARC with reference to the news. Also the league was started back in 2022 and from then, a total of 4 seasons have happened and the 5th season is about to start from 20th September. The league is approved by Oman & Qatar cricket associations & several state associations in India. Taplow45 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a lot of personal opinion... where's the WP:GNG, WP:OFFCRIC, WP:EVENT pass? AA (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Among other things, let's see how that sock investigation goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems noteworthy [1] [2], covered in other news sources as well. Although, article should be improved to include a bit more info such as champions, scorecards, stats etc. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Move to mainspace once the article is complete and ready. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Big Legends play and it has continuously grown in stature. Lot of media attention shows that fans want to know about the league thus i think it should be on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendaryFan88 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good point. Move the page to main space 103.70.152.141 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The above and below keeps should be discarded as they are likely sockpuppets. I have added LegendaryFan88 to an ongoing sockpuppet investigation... curious isn't it, that LegendaryFan88 has made a handful of edits yet stumbles across this AfD. AA (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like someone has an agenda against the league for not having got a chance to work with them. One of the comments shows that an agency is supporting the author. This league is creating jobs for retired cricketers and other staff. And it is visible on top sports networks across the world. Thus i feel it should have a Wiki page for dissemination of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.141 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SPI is hopelessly backlogged,but I've protected this discussion for some laundry free discussion as there's no consensus among established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Hundred

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

One source (a historical marker database); contested merge. The location (a 1626 parish or planation) doesn't reach WP:GNG. See also discussion at User talk:Jacobsatterfield#I have sent you a note about a page you started. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Hi, please note I was in the middle of updating the article when it was nominated for deletion. It is a significantly more fully developed piece than when nominated.

jacobsatterfield (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has developed further (great!), but the references and discussion relate to a much broader topic. None of the new references have Stanley Hundred as their primary subject. Mulberry Island might be reasonable focus for an article with the existing content. So, I therefore that a merge to a broader topic, like Mulberry Island, would be better. Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd indeed support a subsection in Mulberry Island article if the consensus is that Stanley Hundred doesn't stand by itself. It would be much more precise/applicable than the previous attempted Warwick Shire merge. For geographic reference, Stanley Hundred would be about 1300 acres out of around 8000 that comprise the entirety of Mulberry Island. For temporal reference, it's about 150 years out of 400 years of recorded history in that area. The Mulberry Island article itself could be significantly expanded with content by a willing editor, there's much more colonial history that isn't given much attention currently, not to mention the overlap with the modern usage as Fort_Eustis aka Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Contra-wise, a large and sprawling Mulberry Island article could get difficult to follow. Might suggest looking for other examples of historical places of similar size to see what works well.

Do note that the cited Richie/Colonial Williamsburg source has over ten pages dedicated specifically to Stanley Hundred, and the place has it's own historical marker separate from Mulberry Island. But I'm ultimately ambivalent to how the taxonomy of WP pages should be structured, I leave that to the editing pros.

Jacobsatterfield (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Also as a point of reference for other reviewers/commentors, see the Flowerdew Hundred Plantation article, which is Yeardley's other plantation contemporary to this one. As that other historical location is not currently on an active military base, it is a bit more visited and well known/documented than this one. As such, another viable option would be to merge all of this under their founder George Yeardley, but again it boils down to personal preferences for one huge article or several smaller ones, perhaps the Article size guidance is helpful here? Guidance/priority/experience/wise words from a senior editor on WP preference to organizing articles by geography, time-period, or biographical association would be useful, as there's no clear taxonomic preference to the overall corpus.

Jacobsatterfield (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the page easily demonstrates notability. Whether the article topic is the primary subject of its sources are irrelevant: what matters is that they discuss the topic (other than passing references, like phone-book entries) and that the sources be reliable secondary sources. All but one is secondary (the exceptions being the Virginia Company records), and all of them are reliable. In this kind of context, such sources typically discuss early settlements in detail; I strongly doubt that they merely give passing references. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge High School, New Zealand

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

Unable to find any sigcov. Can be redirect to Cambridge, New Zealand#Education Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you click on any of the links on this nomination template: "Find sources: "Cambridge High School, New Zealand" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR", a whole lot of sourcing comes up to help verify Cambridge High School, New Zealand. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which of those sources are reliable, secondary, and in depth? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unnotable school lacking in sigcov. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, of the sources recently added by Schwede66, only [3] is anything close to significant coverage. The others are routine reporting about the school opening. I would need to see more sources to change my vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wasn't attempting to just add sources that show significant coverage. I've added a few sources to show that some of them show significant coverage. The school closed for a few years and that will have been discussed at length. Sources exist; you just need to look for them. Schwede 66 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I searched and didn't find any. You claim there are sources, I don't. The sources you provided are not enough. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, you don't appear to live in New Zealand. Hence, you wouldn't know about PapersPast. And beyond that, you'll find heaps of stuff via ProQuest, which you have access to via the Wikipedia Library. It takes a while to get your head around how it works but once you've figured it out, it's an absolute treasure trove. Schwede 66 08:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 05:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's ridiculous to nominate a high school for deletion that's been around for 140 years. Of course it's notable; you just have to look for sources. Schwede 66 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many schools in New Zealand have been around for over a century and lack any SIGCOV, I couldn't even find any coverage for several recently. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Schwede66 and Maile. Definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I don't have time to edit this at the moment, Papers Past has over 1000 articles referencing Cambridge High School in various national newspapers. The present article just needs updating and more information added. Definitely notable. NealeWellington (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every article I looked at there is not only trivial in coverage (the school is closed, the school won an a sports competition), they are also primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to Keep this article but none of the arguments to Keep can identify specific sources that provide SIGCOV. Many of you are very experienced editors and you should know we can't accept your avowal of importance of the article subject, you need to bring reliable, secondary, independent sources to this discussion. I'm relisting this discussion to offer you more time to do so. But that is what is needed to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Digital USD

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

Non-notable stablecoin. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RS coverage fails WP:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Cryptocurrencies. An independent search for RS coverage found just routine crypto-oriented articles. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion could close as a Soft Deletion but looking at the article page history, I am very certain that it would be pretty much immediately restored. So, I'm relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources fail WP:NCRYPTO. Everything is from industry publications. C F A 💬 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Yemin

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

Yemin's name gets mentioned a lot in punk zines, but as far as I'm aware, none of those are considered reliable, and he's not mentioned frequently enough outside of them to pass notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Television Network

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

Attempted to clean up but found a bunch of WP:FAKEREF and unreliable sources. Everything here appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by UPE Sock in an attempt to show notability. There are sources about some of the individual networks but as a whole there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which is required to show notability under WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages that are part of the WALLEDGARDEN (many of which do not appear notable) are:

Have not sent any of those to AfD as of yet. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimele Usuwa Abengowe

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

Firstly, the content on ref 1 which is a magazine can't be verified by any reliable source same as ref 5. Ref 2 and ref 5 are also the same link on the article current state. The only source here was this which just only talk about his death. Ref 7 which is a YouTube video showcasing a church service cant be use as a source neither any YouTube link can be use as a source. Ref 3 which just only mentioned his name as part of the medical list and not like he was talked about. Subject just totally fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a much respected citizen but WP:NOTMEMORIAL Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
thank you for your response. Please note that @Gabriel601 has been trolling my articles and marking them for deletion. There's an established case of "nominations in bad faith here". Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

welcome again for marking another article of mine for deletion. After the last episode, you should have recused yourself from my articles and leave other editors to go through and arrive at their own conclusions. Cfaso2000 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't verify certain details about this person like the date of birth and death. My search for the various information yielded "result not found" and I was wondering about the origin of other information like the award, OFR. After all these, I can say that the article doesn't meet WP:NPROF and WP:SIGCOV. Also, Gabriel's source analysis is thorough and well-documented. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to being a recipient of one of Nigeria's highest national awards (WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) National Honour of Member of the Order of the Niger (OON) by President Olusegun Obasanjo on the 16th November, 2000 - now sourced to Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The link you provided still doesn’t have his name on it that the president honors him with the title of OON. I opened the link used the control+F to find and paste his name still zero not found. Subject still fails WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has on page 605 as the third entry.... under the heading OFFICER OF THE ORDER OF THE NIGER (OON) Professor C. U. Abengowe ... Abia
  - https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/ng/2000/ng-government-gazette-dated-2000-10-09-no-69.pdf Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    @Msrasnw, winning an award is a WP policy/guide that WP:SIGCOV may exist for an article. Oppositely, there isn't any coverage for this article, hence doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think there is significant coverage in Nigerian media for eg in an important newspaper Independent Nigeria ... we have Emejor, Chibuzor (2023) NGO Immortalises Prof Abengowe, Featured News, Independent Sep 4 [4]
    - and Vision Africa (2013) Professor Abengowe Chimele Usuwa: Pragmatic Icon In The Field Of Teaching And Guidance, Profiles, Vision Africa 08/04 [5] And here (https://archive.upf.org/united-nations/international-day-of-peace/2013/5312-conference-in-abuja-on-education-and-national-development) he is giving a keynote at a serious conference. And there is lots more. I think it is shame that too many Wikipedia editors are too willing to delete what are to my mind clearly notable people that can with a little effort be reasonably sourced. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
      Vision Africa is a non notable platform. Upf is a non notable platform. There is till nothing notable about this man as per Wikipedia notability. If he was that respected a lot of news papers would have carried his news death. But nothing rather than just one news that’s not even all about his death. Gabriel (……?) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject satisfies notability guidelines as have been severally outlined above. Cfaso2000 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source ain't enough to justify notability. Other editors needs to be aware ‘Cfaso2000’ was the article creator. Gabriel (……?) 11:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a disagreement over the quality of sourcing. A source assessment at this point would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Schad

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

Subject fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. COI history doesn't help either. Gheus (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the article: "Brenda and Jeannine McCann co-founded the company Tribe of Two". So all those references are primary sources, too. _signed,Willondon (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, France, Italy, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with enough digging that sources could be coughed up. I have three sources ([6][7][8]) but they might be WP:PRIMARY or may not do enough coverage of the topic at hand. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, I might work on improving this article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest of Mediterranean islands

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

This is a compilation of wars that are mostly unrelated other than that it was waged by a Muslim ruler/state. There is no one "Muslim conquest of Mediterranean islands". It neither describes anything that is unique to itself nor properly covers a broader history that reoccurs among sources as a common theme. This article pretty much synthesizes some sort of a narrative and pushes a vague grouping of events. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Algeria, Syria, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airnav.com

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV and there is no clear reason why this is a notable website. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself has no reference. I cannot find any sources talk about it, only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is very heavily cited (see Google books, Google scholar). There is a page of coverage here and a paragraph of coverage here. I imagine there is more so I suggest participants take a good look at Google books for significant coverage. C F A 💬 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fixed Google books link. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while CFA didn't cast a "vote" in this discussion, they have brought sources to the discussion which should be reviewed. Soft deletion doesn't seem appropriate as deletion is no longer "uncontroversial".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's hardly more than a passing mention to be found (who runs it? etc), but wow, the quantity of mentions in articles, journals, and websites is - in this case - informative. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandial railway station

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

Absolutely no claim to notability, and no sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and no sources. Xegma(talk) 05:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of railway stations in Pakistan for now. Colonial era station, likely notable. Someone with access to local library may find good amount of coverage. Gheus (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. No justification for deleting a highly plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the village that the station serves, Bandial Janubi, with a mention in that article that "the railway station is northeast of the village", pretty much the only fact that I was able to verify from the given coordinates. I found nothing about what trains service the station, its history, or even whether or not the station is still operational. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think this is the best non-delete option.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a rough consensus to Redirect this article but we have two target article suggestions. We need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian American Women Foundation

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

Isn't a notable organization. jwtmsqeh (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be sources for this organization including the LA Times, Santa Monica Daily Press, an interview with a local radio station, and a doctoral dissertation. I'll add them to the article a bit later tonight or tomorrow, just wanted to put them here for anyone else to evaluate etc. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Monica Daily Press seems like a press release? The LA Times is actually a localized sub paper, not sure if that or the local radio is considered since Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifies that articles "solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability". Also, the article is about an event but the same guideline says "an organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". Happy to withdraw this if I'm misreading though. jwtmsqeh (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Support~~ ~~As per the wiki notability principle I don't think this article fulfil the minimal criteria prior to Subject Consideration possible reason fair enough~~ भारतसरकार-विभाग (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We don't have enough opinions here on what outcome is appropriate for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]