Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 October 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

< October 06	October 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of characters in Monarch of the Glen

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

Non-notable list of characters that is completely unreferenced. WP:SIGCOV could not be found. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was previously at AfD under the title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Monarch of the Glen so ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kelley (bassist)

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

This person fails WP:BANDMEMBER, article should be redirected to The Roots. For a longer rationale, see the reply I gave to the article creator after my initial redirection. Mach61 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Mach61 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A similar AfD happened recently for another member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Gray. There, another editor, User:Tau Corvi made a keep argument, which also applies here. "Per WP:MUSIC a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles is notable. Gray is a member of The Roots and The Tonight Show Band, both have WP articles." Hexatekin (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my argument was for a redirect, but in the end, the article was kept. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry for that yes I see now your argument was for a redirect for the Kamal Gray article, but in the end it was kept. Hexatekin (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin "The Roots" and "The Tonight Show Band" are currently one-and-the-same, this argument is clearly against the spirit of WP:BAND#C6. Mach61 18:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I added another source and I will attempt to add more sources in the next few days, as I do believe he has been written about a bunch over the past 15ish years since joining The Roots. Hexatekin (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hexatekin

The sources you added consist of:

A non-independent interview with Premier Guitar
An OkayPlayer that, like the Inquierer article previously mentioned has little to say of Kelley himself
Another No Treble album announcement that has little to say about Kelley

Mach61 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this fails WP:NPERSON and is not saved by either WP:NCREATIVE or by WP:MUSIC's pertinent paragraph. The sources tracked or already presented are worthless. Wikipedia is not a musicians directory nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Kahlenberg

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

BLP that reads like an organisation article. Lots of interview and profiles, passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope creep, I am the one who created the article. I have no financial relationship with the subject 66.112.246.20 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to wiki-editting, but happy to make any proper edits to avoid deletion. Just message me with some guided assistance and I will be happy to make changes. StepToMyLeft123 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Atidna (following AfD discussion). The article does read a bit WP:PROMO on the organization and could be trimmed, and coverage on Kahlenberg is in the context of coverage about Atidna. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG nonetheless. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhornsg: How is the organisation notable. It was created in 2002 and there is virtually no coverage on it, outside a few interviews with Kahlenberg. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep It was created in 2022 actually and has over 30 interviews from different sources including from Al Jazeera, CNN, NPR, ABC News, Axios, etc listed. Quick search shows there are even more not even mentioned on the page. This meets notable standards. I say keep and rename, although the article is lengthy. It is probably better to split into two articles, one about Kahlenberg and one about Atidna. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 2022. I would have to send the Atidna article to Afd. Its not notable as an organisation and would fail WP:NCORP. I see this is your first edit on Wikipedia. How did you managed to find this Afd I wonder. scope_creep^Talk 09:44, 30 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!} 23:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. After washing away the promotional or vanity stuff (e.g. "He aspires to become a professor of international law and contribute to peace efforts in the Middle East and, eventually, he also hopes to enter politics"), the text stands quite comfortably alone on the strong support of multiple sources of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble Sleeping (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a film of unclear release status, not adequately sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM.
This has gone through multiple cycles of "is it released or not?" in the past decade; it was claimed as "upcoming" when the article was created in 2015, then was edited in 2017 to claim that it had been released in 2015, and then got edited again in 2020 to indicate that it was still unreleased -- meanwhile, IMDb claims it was released in 2018, which has proven entirely unverifiable, while this piece in Screen Anarchy claims it was "long-hibernating" when it was "finally released" in 2022, but even that piece is just a short blurb wrapping a YouTube promo clip, not substantive or GNG-building coverage about the film.
As always, however, films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on coverage about them -- but three of the five footnotes here are unreliable junk that isn't helping to build GNG at all, the two acceptable sources (Dread Central and The Wrap) both have to be discounted if the film didn't come out in 2015 as they claimed it was supposed to, and that Screen Anarchy blurb is the only new thing that's been published in any GNG-worthy reliable source since 2015 at all, which means even the best sources here aren't good enough if they're all either short blurbs or inaccurate problems.
Especially given that there are such unresolved questions about when this was ever actually released in the first place, there's just nothing here of enough enduring significance to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Robert Adetuyi#Career: where it is simply mentioned, and merge content about genre (+simplified plot), cast, date, etc; and sources. Not opposed to~~ Keep, given the existing coverage (and the film seems to have been released; review.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) and in light of the reviews identified by Donaldd23, at least. (The 3 reviews show the film was released in 2022 and is therefore considered a 2022 film). Thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the review listed above my Mushy Yank, there are these reviews [1] and [2] . And the question of it being released or not is answered by the fact it is streaming on Tubi [3] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Heyuguys" nor "This Is Film" are reliable sources of GNG-building film reviews at all — film reviews have to come from reputable and established publications to build a film's notability, not just any random WordPress blogger that you can find on the internet. And while AIPT is better, it isn't enough to vault a film over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy review that can be found. And I didn't question that the film has been released, but we've got three conflicting claims about when it was released with no fully satisfactory resolution to the matter of whether it belongs in Category:2015 films, Category:2018 films or Category:2022 films — of which it must be in one of those three, with absolutely no leeway for any "then just don't categorize it for year of release at all" opt-outs, so we can't just handwave that away as a non-issue. "Has been released" is not an instant notability freebie at WP:NFILM in and of itself — even a film that has been released still has to pass GNG on proper reliable source coverage about it, and can't park its notability on blogs or primary sources just because it's available for streaming somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:05, 23 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!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start – Socialist Internationalist Organisation

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

General failure to demonstrate notability. Article purely sourced from its own website and then International (CWI) (WP:ABOUTSELF violation). Attempt to find reliable sources showed no notable coverage in terms of news coverage. Some results appear on Google Scholar but from those I was able to access in English there are few mentions and those appeared trivial and more to do with outside organisations such as SYRIZA.

Article has been appropriately maintenance tagged for several years now yet improvement has not appeared.

Given that the International they are now affiliated to is non-notable (International Standpoint) there looks to be no obvious redirect target, so proposing deletion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I'm wondering if someone cam look for Greek-language reliable sources? The organization has been around for 50 years and was once part of the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) so there may be something out there. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Greek sources I have looked at, there is nothing worthwhile. Although the party is old, it has never been influential outside its own area, so there is not enough coverage. A mention by name here is enough, i think. So Delete. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) (sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – My community barbeque has been around for 75 years, and it was even sponsored by the city. However, there are no reliable sources covering it in-depth, so it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Yue🌙 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parking In Motion

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at AFD many years ago, and it was probably the right call then. This is something I see in ancient maintenance categories - the project was very exciting in 2011 but never went anywhere, the app disappeared, and there was never any subsequent source published anywhere. The sources cited were all from the initial rollout and seem to be blogs, for the most part, but notable blogs. Still, they were and kind of industry-oriented ones that one might suspect were often just passing on press releases.

This is all fine and well when a startup becomes Uber or Reddit or something, there will be no shortage of better sources, but what if nothing notable ever happens after the initial marketing blitz? The coverage was limited and is incomplete, we can't really say anything about what happened with Parking in Motion after the initial hype window. It didn't succeed, but how? Why? The article will probably never be able to say. There's nothing to add to it, no other Wikipedia articles probably need to link to it. It's just... there, incomplete, forever?

But upon reviewing the sources, I dunno that it rises to the level of non-trivial, definitely not-advertising-related sources mentioned in WP:WEB. The LA Times reference looks impressive in the citation, but I tracked it down and it just says "Parking in Motion helps you find and reserve parking spaces. It shows rates and provides directions. Free for iPhone." in a roundup of a few dozen road trip-related apps. I don't think that's non-trivial coverage. But I invite you to review this and the other sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: found sources [4] and [5], and the CNet one was also good. These sources establish sustained coverage over a year and just barely meets SIGCOV. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were in September/November 2011 and the initial articles were April/May 2011, and the LA Times ones mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post. They still read like press releases: "But now you can know exactly what the parking situation is like before you arrive: Parking in Motion". I know this is a weird AFD because there are respectable news websites with paragraphs about Parking in Motion, but reading what they wrote, it does not feel like non-trivial coverage. I did find a working link to the CNET article, it's the best coverage I've seen. At least it's not just rewording a press release. But it still limits the coverage to the rollout hype, which didn't go anywhere. Without better sources, the Wikipedia article is stuck in the hype phase forever. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least four different months, which seems just borderline enough to establish Sustained to me.
mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post
See WP:NewsBlog. The author's page says she is their reporter, and the references to blogging seems to be just the format.
The articles have clear bylines so I don't think they're press releases. Product news in general, especially for hyped products, nearly always reads promotional because the writers are hopeful to see where it goes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage, it's all essentially trivial in nature. Rollout hype with no lasting impact does not seem to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

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

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[6][7] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip: possibly with a very selective merge. This comes across as a SYNTH aggregation of several events during the war, some separated by half a year, grouped together solely by geography. "Battle at <x>" brings to mind a single, continuous military conflict at that spot, not a collection of skirmishes separated by months of nothing there. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok, so far we have a "we probably shouldn't have this" consensus - but does that mean we delete it or redirect it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Sen Ahir

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 29#Mitra Sen Ahir. C F A 💬 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Part of a bundled nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so it can not be Soft Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keron Williams

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

I can't find any serious WP:SIGCOV on this person. Several Google searches brought back very, very few meaningful sources. This seems to fail WP:GNG as a result. The article also kind of comes across as self-made, possibly violating WP:COIN. Anwegmann (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voltes V: Legacy – The Cinematic Experience

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

The film is basically a recap of Voltes V: Legacy. there is an upcoming re-release with new Japanese dubbing and new "never before seen scenes" but there is a lack of information for a separate article. Would be better to have this as a redirect to the source material. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Japan, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driggu Florentino

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, or WP:ACTOR. All the references are either the subjects own website, or self-published sources that are promotional in nature. Also appears to have been deleted in the past with the discussion here. The page creator deleted the PROD tag so I am bringing it to AfD. cyberdog958^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Brazil. cyberdog958^Talk 01:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protector (DC Comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG the page itsself notes that he's a very minor character with a little over three appearances. Also appears to be some prose issues Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Extremely minor character with no more than a handful of actual appearances. The only non-primary source included in the article is a defunct fan-site. Searching for sources mostly turns up entries in fan-wikis, including some that are just mirrors of this article. The only bit of coverage that could be considered significant is this piece from ScreenRant, which even if one were to discount the concerns at WP:VALNET of using the site as the sole means of establishing notability, would not be enough on its own to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of DC Comics characters: P. BD2412 T 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]