Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Biratnagar Kings

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

Teams that compete in a barely notable tournament, so don't need separate team articles. One team from the NPL was already redirected after AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers- though editors keep reverting that redirect against consensus)- and the same non notability applies to these other NPL teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating other NPL team:

Keep: This team already participated in the Dhangadi Premier League and have many coverage article about it in Nepal.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage exists, please add it. Everything on these articles so far is WP:ROUTINE. Just because they've competing in another league, that doesn't mean we need a separate team article, unless they meet WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated over the redirect, but as per the last AFD, this team isn't notable enough for a separate article, even though the page has been updated some more. I propose restore the redirect and WP:SALT it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthoba Nayaka

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

Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 美しい歌 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged under criterion G11 since the page is clearly promotional. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

KidzSearch

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

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: standard list of programmes by network,: can be trimmed, but at least please see Category:MeTV_original_programming. WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous recent AfDs for similar lists have resulted in deletion or redirection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by HTV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I participated in at least one of the ones you linked (and a relist would not have hurt in that particular case) and I would obviously have !voted Keep at the other ones if I had been aware of the discussions.

But those 6 AfDs -FXIW: One was in 2009- do not invalidate the arguments above and 1) the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept/unchallenged pages is a hint that 2) should anyone take further actions to delete similar pages a more general discussion would perhaps be useful. At the very very very least Redirects would indeed seem to be an obvious ATD in each and every case except when he network has no page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, didn't mean to include that 2009 one, wanted to list to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL). I'll leave it in the list, but it of course is no evidence of any recent AfD trend on the matter. But on the other hand I see no evidence for "the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept" articles (unchallenged ones are just that, nothing more or less). For channels with little or no original programming (something like the above AfDs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)), the result is nearly always delete / redirect. The keeps are usually for major channels with lots of original programming, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, and I wouldn't argue for deletion of such ones. Fram (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Illinois. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely acquired programming with next to no original content. Also inadequately sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might be missing something here, but where does it say originals has notability, but reruns don't? The owner of this channel Weigel Broadcasting has better viewership than Hallmark, A&E networks or AMC that do have original programming. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/#viewing-by-distributor

One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Takayanagi

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

Huge failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of football matches. No usable sources in ja:wiki, is it apparent for everyone that they are exclusively WP:PRIMARY (or too short, as #1). Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 07:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Zeidan

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

Fails WP:BIO, reads like promotional material, most sources are either broken or unreliable 'socialite' content. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeraj Kurup

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

Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and so unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find three articles that were reliable (WP:RS) and had significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability of musicians, No awards nor significant honour

Tesleemah (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

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

This is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: WP:LISTCRUFT.

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. Sir MemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WeatherWriter. I see no net benefit for the encyclopedia by deleting it. It could be trimmed and organized a bit, perhaps.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 2024 at least deserves a section on History of tornado research. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of tornado research. This article meets at least two criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT (#1 and #2). At best, it can be trimmed and some of the information merged into the other article. Keeping it would invite an article for 2025 and 2026 and 2027 ad infinitum. Such articles are not needed as WP:STANDALONE - expanding the original article will be enough. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As copyeditor, this article seems really useful to some (also per WeatherWriter). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: An abridged version of this article should be included in History of tornado research. SirBrahms (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research - I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG on its own. That is, we would need significant, independent coverage of tornado research in 2024. However, it's a perfectly valid page split; it should be merged back to History of tornado research where, if after considerations of WP:DUE (focusing on secondary coverage of research rather than primary research results), it could be split again in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirvidya Parisanstha

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

Subject does not establish notability. Sections devoid of information. Poorly written. Written in a non-formal and non-neutral way. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as the subject is plausibly notable. See here. Marathi sources (that I can’t access) may also be available. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify would probably be appropriate. It also needs far more sources and it needs to probably be updated to 2024. Sushidude21! (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Mccapra. Svartner (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above discussion. It’s potentially notable, but until someone fixes both (1) the sources and (2) the poor quality writing, it’s not ready for prime time. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Souls (video game)

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

A draft that was copy and pasted back into mainspace (so, it's been objected to). A PROD would also likely be objected to. A WP:BEFORE brings up another game. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable, published sources documenting the existence of this game. The best I can find is a random TV Tropes article (as you probably know, TV Tropes has far less strict policies on "notability" than Wikipedia).

Fails WP:V and WP:N. ApexParagon (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. Seems like it has a tiny insular group of fans, and has made no impact outside that group. ApLundell (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI There is an unrelated board game with the same name. ApLundell (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article was published before too the same day but I moved it to a draft as it had no sources and to give the creator of the article time to establish if it has potential merit, however I haven't seen any other sources confirming its a game notable of having a page and as he re-published it I simply don't see any arguments for keeping this article. BastianMAT (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of meeting the GNG, seemingly created by a WP:SPA. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. Fails everything from WP:GNG to WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and all points inbetween. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 55 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, with the casualty count being high, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. As WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says, routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Sources found:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article obviously needs some work, but could meet criteria if sufficiently sourced and expanded. SirBrahms (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, what work would you suggest (or, indeed, perform yourself)? Did you look at any available sources or evaluate the current sourcing of the article? Would you recommend any sources to add to it? And if so, what sources would you recommend for consideration? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep As said above by @SirBrahms Article does need some work, but 55 fatalities is notable and should stay as an article even if there are no reliable or good sources. I'm sure this article could be saved and increased to a good grade if we put in some work. @Thebiguglyalien Lolzer3k 17:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AS per my comment above, what 'work' would you put in to increase this article to a 'good grade'??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source retrieval and expansion. This article is a WP:STUB that cites no sources. there is indefinetly atleast one or many sources that could help enlarge this article. @Alexandermcnabb Lolzer3k 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of sourcing for a single event with no enduring influence does not address WP:LASTING "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." and therefore we have a report of a single incident which is where we fail WP:NOTNEWS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present). The notability has been established above and I would have definitely supported a keep if the article was long enough. It isn't. In it's CURRENT form this is an unjustified SPINOFF. We do not need an article on each accident. Only if these are notable enough (✅) and we happen to write enough on the accident (❌). No objection to draftication, if someone wants to work on this later. Do ping me if expanded before this AfD ends! gidonb (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents

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

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Islam, and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The list should be rescoped to only contain notable events with broad coverage. It may also be viable to rename it to something like "List of Islamophobic terror attacks" or "List of Islamophobic hate crimes", depending on the new scope. I don't think outright deleting the page would be productive. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't know why you are doing this. But this list is super-duper notable. Lots of references are added to the article. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for lists is not predicated off of how many citations are referencing the individual items. If the concept of the list is not manageable or is not notable then it can be deleted. There is no way to have this article in a manner that does not violate WP:What Wikipedia is not PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rescope to only focus on notable incidents agree with nom that this is not a managable list in its current form due to the volume of coverage of incidents. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of these incidents are non-notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify - WP:SALAT indicates list articles should not be overly broad. This article probably could exist if the subsections were there own articles with relevant and useful selection criteria. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Is currently on the main page (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 03:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Simulator

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

I could find only one secondary source - https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/a-new-game-parodies-the-new-york-times-gaza-coverage/ - and even this would probably not be a conventional WP:RS. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Games. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article is currently on the front page and 1 2 3 are RS secondary sources per Wikiproject video games 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

JoonYong Park

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Very little coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mostly primary sources... press releases, a few interviews which per WP:INTERVIEWS would be primary sources, and the one small independent secondary source (the AdAge piece, ref #1 and #7) is the same piece just republished. WP:BEFORE search just shows more primary sources, social media, LinkedIn posts, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, South Korea, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Takala

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

Article does not provide any indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. He ran for state legislature but did not win, and the sources are links to things he wrote, rather than articles about him. I am unable to find significant coverage of him from a Google search. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Minnesota. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to say. As OP said, all those many refs are stuff by him. Not notable enough. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No independent coverage of Takala himself outside of a few mentions in small local newspapers like this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:POLITICIAN. Local party worker and commentator in his youth. No indication he ever held office other than within his own local party affiliations. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

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

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a spectacular idiot satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is very important, or to phrase it another way, no less important than many many others. Who are we to culturally filter what is kept? The number of actors/writers articles I pass by here who clearly curate their own pages, running them as C.Vs, and they all stay because they find some NYT books section reference to stave off deletion. This guy? He gets binned? Michael, his response to wealth, and the infamy it generated at the time in newspapers, is significant in U.K. early 2000s culture. It remaining is important in evidencing the wider implications for how money, culture, and class influence society. Wikipedia is damaged by loss of articles like these, and all the more so because people with poor socio-economic positions are simply pushed out of existence (literally, here), while those with means remain (and thus dominate). SFC9394 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

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

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose... Either way is fine really. I think our de facto standard for films is "it exists (or did)". There are a number of film articles that have less than info than this in them I think. And the director is bluelinked... on the other hand, it looks like he shouldn't be. And it is only 52 minutes... not a short film, but is that long enough for a feature film? If it had a serious release in a serious number of commercial theaters I would probably change my mind. But there's no indication of that, and it seems doubtful. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

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

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. This article establishes him as the only oncologist at the Uganda Cancer Institute in 2004. And is now director of the UVRI. Both of which have close relationships with other high standing research institutions (e.g. World Health Org). I would say this falls under WP:NACADEMIC#C5. He also received a lifetime recognition award at a scientific conference giving support to other NACADEMIC points. He also has decent citations on papers based on a quick glance, particularly for someone working in a smaller country. I'll see what else I can pull up for sources. Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:SiniyaEdita. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siniya is WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote is just WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Herostratus meant Cyanochic. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It demonstrates they didn't properly read this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm generally in agreement that the head of a research institute is the equivalent of a professorship. I think one has to consider the context of Uganda and the bias it would show if a page on a senior scientist/academic was removed simply because they worked their career in Uganda. JMWt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the analysis of JMWt & Cyanochic. Also, even excluding a couple of heavily coauthored Marburg papers where I doubt Katongole-Mbidde was a major contributor, GS citations[25] look healthy with top citations 265,234, and five more above 100. (Some of these date back to the 1970s and early 1980s when citation frequency was much lower.) ETA He also publishes as "Edward Mbidde" and "EK Mbidde". ETA2. I've also found several sources on WL which refer to him being quoted as the expert on HIV clinical trials in Uganda by David Satcher & Harold Varmus in a well-known NEJM opinion paper of 1997 which I don't think is free to access (Varmus H, Satchef D. Ethical complexities of conducting research in developing countries. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1003-1005). Espresso Addict (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interview from 1996 with a couple of sentences of bio: [26] which confirms he's director of the Uganda Cancer Institute, calls him "one of Uganda’s foremost AIDS researchers", "chair of the research subcommittee of the Uganda National AIDS Committee" and an "international authority on HIV vaccine research". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre FORA

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

Non-notable organization. BEFORE search leads to nothing, failing GNG and NORG. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in RS so I can't see how it can meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Barkere

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

there's nothing that mentions Felo Barkere and Baunez Ridge together that isn't Eric Gilbertson related/sourced. This location doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Africa, and Senegal. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Bikku Bitti have used peakbagger and summitpost blogs as a source, so what's the difference with this article? Any highest point of a sovereign nation should have its article on Wikipedia or at least be mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people like Eric or Ginge are the only source of information on peaks like this. Allowing one highpointer's firsthand information (like Ginge on Bikku Bitti) but not allowing Eric's on Felo Barkere seems strange and inconsistent by WP policy. Also, peakbagger has extensively been used as a source for minor mountains (which Felo Barkere would fall under), so what is the sudden change against this? Also, peaks promoted to the main database on peakbagger are looked over and verified by administrators, so some "child sitting on his dad's shoulder" won't be messing up the measurement by 5-6 feet on a peak in the main database as much of the data comes from professionally done surveys. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up Bikku Bitti. I've cleared out totally unacceptable low quality diary/blog, which appears to have been added over a decade ago. As you look at different articles, you will sometimes find articles written over a decade ago that is chock full of complete trash and ad articles that look like a press release written entirely off of company site. On less lower traffic article that sort of things tend to happen. When you find contents written based on personal website, first see if the site cites a reliable source that meets WP:RS standards. If it does, replace it with that source. If not, I personally encourage removing contents based on some anecdotal evidence. Pruning low quality information is part of improving Wikipedia. If there's trash all over both sides of the road and someone cleans up one side, you can go ahead and clean the other side. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and by delete I probably mean redirect somewhere. I think I'm very permissive when it comes to geographical place names, but I don't see anything here which passes WP:NGEO's permissive rule of provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. The only other Wikipedia which even mentions it that I could find is Czech, which calls it "nameless hill." It's clearly more than a hill, but I can't find anything to add to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Geography of Senegal#Physical features, which can have a mention of Felo Barkere / Baunez Ridge? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point us to just one reliably published secondary source linking the term "Felo Barkere" to Senegal or Baunez Ridge? I did find Worldatlas linking Baunez Ridge to Senegal as the highest point. Without a reliable source linking "Felo Barkere" to these, it would be inappropriate to re-direct this to Senegal, as it is to re-direct this to say... elephant or zebra. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to find a RS to justify the redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CIA Factbook [27] says the highest point in Senegal is unamed so conflicting with "Felo Barkere". Barkere is apparently a village in Guinea so it's questionable the peak has this name in Senegal. This website just calls it "Senegal High Point" [28] and is 10 metres higher than stated in the article. Agree with the nominator's comments and reasoning. As it stands there's basically a single source for this name, so notability not established and it would be wrong to redirect to the Geography of Senegal page under this article's title. So, unless further reliable sources found to back up Felo Barkere, I'm inclined to delete. Rupples (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing a way to WP:V so it doesn't feel like there is an ATD. Maybe sources exist in a format we can't access, so this might change in the future and the page can be resurrected. JMWt (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foundation for Education Support

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

There is no assertion of notability and while I do not read Russian, Google Translate accesses it with some ease and I'm unable to find N:ORG level coverage. I do not think a redirect to or merge with Gymnazium Union of Russia is viable as I'm not sure that would survive AfD either although the name makes a BEFORE more challenging. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and Russia. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without seeing significant third party reliable sources that show that the inclusion criteria have been met, I can't see how we can tell how important/significant this is. It has been reported but it seems to be only a small ripple in the media, and I'm not even sure how reliable those sources are. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentest-Tools

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

No WP:SUSTAINED establishment of notability with WP:RSes. Clearly promotional. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: The sections Products, Awards and accolades, Services and Community contribution definitely have to be either rewritten (to avoid promotional material) or deleted outright. The rest of the article can be kept (especially if it can be unorphaned). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SirBrahms, @everyone, Please help me with any suggestions to improve the page, i'm willing to improve it in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest trying to remove material that could be considered promotional first, and then making efforts to link this article in relevant pages (unorphan). I hope this helps set you on the right track to improving it. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - I'm not seeing enough here to meet the GNG, although it might be close if there was more time to draft and improve with better sources. JMWt (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — promotional, poorly sourced, despite the flood of cherry-picked links. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[2] "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[3] "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[4] Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[1]