Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 18	July 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. There's a clear consensus against deletion. A separate discussion about a potential merger can continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., ~~three~~ ~~four~~ two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[1]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[2] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources indicate the visits received "almost unprecedented" coverage? There needs to be sourcing that indicates why the trips in and of themselves are notable separate from the long-standing policies reaffirmed by Orbán on the trips. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the visits were a subject to significant media coverage, enough to justify a standalone article. It also has 25 reliable and verifiable sources. Overall I fail to see how it would fail WP:NOTABILITY.

Brat Forelli🦊 07:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has attracted quite substantial and ongoing coverage in media across Europe and globally. Article obviously needs cleanup but the trip by Orbán to Russia, which is effectively in conflict with the European Union while acting as President of the European Council, has had a significant impact and resulted in consequences for Hungary, such as boycotts of meetings in Hungary by EU commissioners and Hungary being stripped of hosting a European foreign ministers meeting. Imagine if Joe Biden controversially visited Russia without consultation with European leaders and to undermine European support for Ukraine. I think we'd all agree that was worthy of a stand-alone article. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden doesn't seem to be consulting much with his European allies. Certainly he doesn't consult its Middle Eastern policies, and just comes to the region as he likes. Yes each of such visits generates plenty of coverage. No we don't cover those trips in separate articles either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a major political event with potential international impact in the long run covered in-depth by media articles. Maybe it was less obvious during the nomination (July 12) but now the situation is different as the page has been substantially upgraded in terms of sources and content. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 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. Star Mississippi 13:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Axsmith

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

Textbook WP:BIO1E. Was in the news for one blog post that got her fired in 2006. No notability as defined in WP:BIO, such as WP:SUSTAINED otherwise. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Barely scrapes by GNG either way. C F A 💬 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:BIO1E. Axsmith's notability stems from a single incident: her firing following a 2006 blog post. There has yet to be the kind of steady coverage that shows a broader notability. There are also no writings or citations related to her work. Thus, the article does not meet WP:BIO. The lack of sustained coverage or impact in her field supports the case for deletion. It's crucial to remember that this platform's content focuses on subjects that have lasting significance.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a writer for Daily Kos now, but that's not terribly notable. The firing got into the news cycle almost 20 yrs ago, but nothing since. I don't see sustained notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that this is a case of WP:BIO1E due to a lack of sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't have enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she's notable. The current information is too sparse to meet WP:N. Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being a classic BLP1E issue, I don’t see a level of specific evidence that she passes WP:SIGCOV or my own standards for notable lawyers. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is indeed known only for a single event. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:36, 26 July 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. ✗plicit 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) *Delete : updating !vote per subsequent comments and WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Selective merge to 2024 Washington summit for reasons noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS. Might be able to be mentioned in a sentence somewhere on the campaign. Might. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and 2024 Washington summit. This event alone is WP:NOTNEWS, but the content fits well into these other articles. Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: editors are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Just another press conference; only related to the summit by virtue of happening at the same time, so a merge makes little sense to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and ROTM. No idea what makes this worthy of a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Updating my !vote from above, convinced by editors citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others above. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another episode in the Biden saga Personisinsterest (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to merge. This can be covered in a paragraph at most. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL press conference. Not sure why this was created in the first place. C F A 💬 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per Not News. Felicia (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous votes. Not much point in a redirect, I doubt many people will be going on Wikipedia to search the exact phrase "Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:10, 22 July 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. The Delete views carry considerably more P&G-weight than the Keeps. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Geezy

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

This fails WP:NCREATIVE, and overall, WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. The award they won is not significant enough to help them pass, if they had 'won' their 'nomination's, that would be a different case, just merely being nominated at NEA isn't significant enough. The noms are unsourced while the piece the award they won is sourced to is an unreliable one from a marginally reliable publication (WP:NGRS). Taking a close look at the sources, they are mostly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and unreliable pieces and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I am skeptical about the notability of G-Worldwide Entertainment itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nominated for a notable award twice in 2015 and 2017.--Afí-afeti (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV(both in the Nigerian media and in foreign ones). At least you can look at the Nigerian Wikipedia article and find several sources. I’m not sure about WP:NMUSIC, but it’s not the main criteria anyway. Tau Corvi (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tau Corvi You clearly don't know how the general notability guideline works. For an subject to have a standalone page on Wikipedia, they have to be the subject of discussions from multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject, reliable and provides a substantial coverage of the subject. These are needed to pass WP:GNG, a subject doesn't just pass SIGCOV to qualify for a standalone page. Even the SIGCOV you claim it passes is even not exactly correct because that is not the case. I understand you're a new user, you may need to familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines before venturing into AfDs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If an Award has been reviewed, has a Wikipedia page and meets the WP:GNG then it’s notable. But reference from reliable source that are independent of the subject are needed to be cited for proof. The fact he has Won, being Nominated for notable awards, contributed to the notable movie Suga Suga (film) as an executive producer makes him passes WP:ANYBIO and notable. Per source cited on the article, subject passes WP:GNG. If the award section can be addressed then my vote is a Keep. Please to the AFD nominator theirs no point responding to me. I’m not here to argue unreasonably or pick sides. My word still stands per Wikipedia article guideline.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:57, 16 July 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, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any notability, and to be blunt, no claim to fame; even if everything is true, I don’t see what’s notable. Producers are not inherently notable. We’ve gone over this many time and we’re unlikely to change. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearian, here’s a reliable source from Guardian Nigeria that discuss his rise to fame, and credit his works as an executive producer. The title labelled him as one of the pioneer of Afrobeat music into the global market. Mind you, Kizz Daniel’s first album New Era was on Billboard World Chart. As for the billboard chart, you can check here 2016. As for the link I shared above, I noticed the website is undergoing upgrade and I couldn’t retrieve via web archive. I will keep trying the link till it back, then I will notify you. Afí-afeti (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it’s a producer who has had the stature of Phil Spector, producers are not notable. That’s the WP:OUTCOMES. If we want to make exceptions, then I would go along with the consensus change. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 27 July 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Education of Needy Children in Fiji

AfDs for this article:

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

No real evidence of notability. The sources found in the previous AfD are all either dead and not archived or do not discuss the company in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, instead consisting of routine announcements of companies dontaing to them. While that's a noble goal it's not notability-establishing * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fiji. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 28 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All coverage is WP:MILL. Not really anything about the company itself aside from funding announcements and press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGTRIV. The article is also in pretty rough shape and while I don't like deleting stuff for this reason, there simply isn't enough coverage out there to write a better article beyond a short stub. C F A 💬 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage out there, most of it appearing to be press-release-based churnalism. But I think enough of it goes beyond WP:ORGTRIV, for example, these piece in the Fiji Times that involve reporting ([3], [4]), and this piece in FBC News ([5]). There is also some mildly critical coverage that for sure wouldn't be from a press release, see Fiji Times ([6]) and FBC News ([7]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclemens1971 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first set of articles consists almost entirely of quotes from the organization hence fails WP:ORGIND. The second set does not discuss the organization in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree about what constitutes sufficient depth. I think several paragraphs constituting the whole of a news story on a single organization counts; I would describe the two more critical stories in particular as delivering "a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" per WP:CORPDEPTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources support the article well and particulary the sources that include some negative press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockycape (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens1971. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Pppery here that while it's close, the coverage in sourcing discussed above doesn't ultimately meet CORPDEPTH requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:01, 25 July 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. There's a clear consensus against deleting the page. The choice of whether and where to merge the page is an editorial one, and can take place on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda Network Exord

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

Subject of a New York Times article in 2008, one of thousands of unremarkable exords that the U.S. military executes every years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to War on Terror, possibly also Al Qaeda. Useful information which has now been turned into Wikiformat and should not be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered in foreign media [8] and some journals [9], [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The journal articles are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and not WP:SIGCOV. The foreign media article cited is just reporting on the New York Times article already sourced. Longhornsg (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I don't see any consensus for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with War on Terror: Articles/journals linked are really just trivial mentions; seems pretty WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Fails GNG on its own. Better off in a broader article. C F A 💬 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though I would also support outright deletion because I don't think the content is really important. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:01, 20 July 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 no consensus‎. First, it makes no difference how long this article is. We have stub articles that are just one sentence. Secondly, editors who are interested in converting this page to a Redirect can discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [11] [12] [13] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a kelurahan is an official government designation in Indonesia - who knows who’d translated it to an "administrative village", but it's a real unit with a designated office where you go to handle papers and whatnot, listed in Indonesian ID cards as its own item. Juxlos (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote because I'm not familiar with how region designations work in Indonesia, but if this were to be deleted, shouldn't Kedaung Kali Angke, Cengkareng Barat and Cengkareng Timur also be deleted because they are unsourced stubs about administrative villages? C F A 💬 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure SportingFlyer's sources meet GNG, although they're enough for a couple of sentences. If this does end up on the deletion side, it would be better to redirect to List of administrative villages of Jakarta, which could then be slightly expanded to say eg. "Duri Kosambi, named in reference to a Schleichera plantation which used to exist in the area." CMD (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND, and the area has clear coverage from secondary sources in Indonesian. Not a self-governing part (mostly by virtue of being in Jakarta), but it's official and it's there. Juxlos (talk) 10:01, 21 July 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. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Mu Gamma

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

No references except for one about a member Naraht (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide more from El Mundo, next week. El Johnson (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Spanish, but I will say that for archive for El Mundo has 15 hits for Zeta Mu Gamma at [14] Whether those represent information showing notability is unclear. I did check the last name of one of the founders in that archive, and El Mundo doesn't seem to have that list, though there is of course the possibility of OCR issues. I look forward to the changes and would be willing to hold if necessary. (I now want to look up other Puerto Rican GLOs in El Mundo)Naraht (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source is for a notable member. There are no sources for the body of the article and nothing shows up with an online search. Even if there is potential source in El Mundo, it is doubtful that it would provide details about the fraternity's founders, colors, motto, or membership qualifications—the content in this article that requires a source. However, I am not against moving this to Draft Space where sources can be added, if found. Of course, I will revist my recommendation if sources are added during this AfD. Rublamb (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:31, 24 July 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. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Pantoja

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. The subject of a short-lived meme in 2016; otherwise non-notable. Astaire (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Internet, and Washington. Astaire (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much 1E, not much coverage in the 10 yrs or so since. Not notable as a political candidate either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough in-depth coverage of him as a person. The "Hugh Mungus" incident might qualify for a page, but Pantoja doesnt. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E. Nothing else to note about them outside of the one incident. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although many sources are reliable, this is basically a local gadfly, and badly fails WP:POL. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 25 July 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!} 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Farès

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

non notable, written by an undisclosed paid editor, sources are terrible Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Lebanon, and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some coverage in regards to the RATP in Paris in railway journals [15], but nothing for extensive sourcing.French wiki article is also up for deletion for notability reasons, it appears to be a translation using the same sources as here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional in tone and reads like a resume. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RATP Group#Presidents. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was kinda planning to remove that section and move em to the infobox. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 22 July 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. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia Apostólica Filadelfia

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under SNG or GNG. Small church built in 2015. Not only no GNG references, there are zero references on it. Reference is about the religion, not the church. And so is the article other than the 1 "it exists" statement. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a bad nomination, emphasizing the current state of the article rather than the notability of the subject. However, the sorry state of the article accurately reflects the non-notable nature of the subject. A quick BEFORE indicates that the church is an independent congregation in the Pentecostal Apostolic tradition with no claim to fame, even locally. Possibility of Spanish-language sources escaping my search seems unlikely. No relevant merge or redirect target exists, so ATD isn't in play. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the state of the article is not the issue. The description given was indicative of wp:notability, the comments on the content of the article and sources were merely indicative of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NORG or WP:NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:22, 26 July 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. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeil Gholizadeh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG (which says that these must meet GNG) Of the sources, 2 are just database listings and the other is about a game where he is mentioned. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only remotely RS I can find are brief mentions of him in reports of matches. It sounds like he might become notable as his career progresses, but right now is TOOSOON. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV, coverage is too weak. Tau Corvi (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:47, 24 July 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. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gallagher

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

Subject might meet notability guidelines, but seems very likely to be an autobiographical article. Primary contributor's name matches subject's initials and it's the only article they've edited. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 July 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 redirect‎ to Megan (album) as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where Them Girls At (Megan Thee Stallion song)

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

This is an album track with no coverage outside of its parent album. A few low chart positions (the New Zealand one not even on the main chart of that country) is not enough to sustain an article. I am nominating this because my redirection of the article was reverted. This should be redirected to Megan (album) as it fails WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" and re: point 1, that charting only indicates that a topic may be notable, not that it is. Ss112 19:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Megan (album). I agree with the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outside of "Mamushi" and "Otaku Hot Girl", "Where Them Girls At" has been considered a future single (and has charted as such), and was more importantly recommended by her fans on X (formerly Twitter) as the landslide choice for the next music video. At bare minimum the page should remain as an album promotional single as it has received early airplay on several Urban radio stations. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing based on potential future notability? I mean, maybe, but we can't keep based on that. It can always be restored in the future if this happens (and comes with reliable coverage/other signifiers of notability), but not if it hasn't happened yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm arguing current notability with a potential for increased prominence as the album campaign continues. It seems the only thing separating a song like this (charted, early airplay, better streaming numbers than a majority of the other album tracks, received attention as an early standout on album release day) from a Taylor Swift album track that inevitably charted when the whole project did and received its own page is ... personal preference. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This song has received lots of plays on radio and streaming service. Even if it doesn't end up getting a music video or becoming a single it still has already gotten some charting and been relatively successful. MC-123 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination: charting does not mean a song needs an article, and WP:NSONGS states charting is only an indication of notability. There are lots of album tracks with millions of streams out there. It doesn't mean they're notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Ss112 22:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources that talk about the song? Being played lots isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be future potential for an article on this song, but not right now. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song, no critical coverage, has not charted nor won a Grammy. Coverage is strictly limited to album reviews where this track is mentioned. Not meeting notability... Being a "future hit", isn't good enough. Crystal ball applies. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has charted on both national charts and radio-fueled airplay charts. Saying it has not charted is a very bold claim to make when the chart placements are prominently located on the very page you have voted to delete. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsskyscrapers: What is the radio-fueled airplay chart you speak of? None of the three charts listed on the article are primarily or solely airplay charts. Ss112 06:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not present when I !voted. Ok it's charted, but we need sourcing that talks about it. Charting hints at notability, but it's not a free pass. Oaktree b (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: To be clear, the charting was there when I nominated the page for deletion/redirection. Ss112 04:51, 26 July 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. The lone Keep view raises a valid argument against the sweeping use of WP:NOTDATABASE. However, consensus is clearly against keeping the page. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of historical exchange rates to the United States dollar

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

WP:NOTDATABASE. Seemingly arbitrary selection of dates, with little context and mostly copied from an external site. Seems like a Wikidata thing, not really an enwiki thing. Mdann52 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDATABASE absolutely applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Informative article but it's a mere database. Dympies (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. A lot of arbitrary information that isn't really encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please read what WP:NOTDATABASE actually says. It does not say no databases, only no invalid ones, giving specific examples. Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Dream Focus 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I'm thinking particularly of WP:NOTSTATS here. It's a series of exchange rates on certain years, with no explanation as to the significance of the dates or why they were picked, nor the methodology to work out the rate, not the actual dates the stats were taken on, just the year. This really doesn't read like an encyclopaedic article at all to me, nor am I sure how it can be transformed into one. Mdann52 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of the global economy was what I was thinking. How the currencies of other nations over time became more or less valuable than the America dollar, as evidence by how many of them are needed to trade for a dollar. Most of the dates are every ten years. Not sure why it changes for the five most recent ones. Dream Focus 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - but this article very much doesn't give that. Risking getting off topic, the USD exchange rate in Jan 2008 was very different than June 2008, and this article as it currently is wouldn't capture the context there. I'm not against an article going through how events have affected the value - but in it's current form the information presented is without context and not encyclopaedic, and it would need so much work to get it into shape that it would need to be rewritten again from scratch. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In theory this is notable - there is a popular reference book on this topic - but this isn’t an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 26 July 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. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Boëton

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

I don't think the author is notable. I can't find enough independent reliable secondary sources covering his work. --Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors. Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, all sources I could find are either interviews or passing mentions.

BilletsMauves^€500 13:55, 21 July 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. Discarding the "Speedy delete" !vote - the page doesn't qualify under any CSD - we're left with an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Republican National Convention

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded again after the article was recreated in draftspace. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Texas. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convention site selection process already occurred involving numerous bid cities. This article is not speculative. Its location is already selected, and planning for it is underway. SecretName101 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not premature, considering how the last one happened. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. TH1980 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it too soon when aspects related to it (site selection) already occurred months ago? SecretName101 (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd be voting delete, but it's clear that the preparations are well underway and there have been enough developments (covered by reliable sources) to justify having a page now. The only reason why it would be necessary to delete a page for a future event is if it's a bare-bones page that just says "this will happen on this date." This page obviously doesn't fit that description. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SecretName101 and BottleOfChocolateMilk. There's enough reliably sourced content with significant coverage here to warrant the article's existence. Sal2100 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The following comments were posted on this afd's talk page by an IP user:
- The 2028 Convention is set. The location will not change. Not only have they chosen the city, but also the venue. It is important to keep it because it will be updated as more info is available. 24.210.51.117 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is enough to establish notability in a sense however it still feels way to early and irrelevant. However my opinion does not matter in the grand scheme of things and as I said there is enough here to establish notability. Joecompan (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify) A planned political conference due to be held in 2028 is not made notable four years ahead of time simply by routine media coverage about a potential venue such as the Miami Herald publishing an article titled "Miami bidding to host the 2028 Republican National Convention. Here's the initial pitch". This is not the significant coverage required for events. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage of the process. It’s possible that the Republican Party could go bankrupt, and/or Miami might be underwater in four years, but the process is still notable. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 25 July 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 redirect‎ to Raipur, Bankura#Education as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girls' High School (HS)

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

Seems very run-of-the-mill. Sources are all primary/government databases. No evidence of meeting WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the issue. Please close this discussion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources updated,please remove afd. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources has been added. Please close this discussion.Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have searched for sources and not found any. The current sources are not good enough. They are all primary, apart from possibly the teachers' journal, which I can't access. Leaning redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, but will wait to see if anyone else can find reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attached more independent sources. They are not government directories or any primary sources.They ate independet sources,so I request you to close the deletion discussion page. Arijit Kisku (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for adding two more sources. They are still not reliable sources, though. This is a request to tender for building works. It is a primary source. I'm not entirely sure what this is, as a pop-up ad I can't remove blocks part of the screen for me, but it looks like some sort of school listing, probably commercial. Do you know if the school has been covered in any off-line sources - books about the history of the area, memoirs of staff or people who attended? As Pppery said in the nomination, so far all we have are primary or commercial sources, nothing independent or reliable that shows notability. Can you access the teachers' journal - do you know what that says about the school? Typically, deletion discussions run for at least 7 days, so this is unlikely to be closed before then, so that other editors can comment. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to teachers' journal, but i can confirm, it's on page number 96, there is a teachers' information who was associated with the school. Arijit Kisku (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raipur, Bankura#Education, as still lacking reliable secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 July 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!} 18:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalidas Madhu Sadhwani

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

Couldn't find any sources proving existence; only websites mentioning him are Wikipedia mirrors, and a search on Google scholar gives nothing. Written by a user (Reims66) whose only four edits were about this person. None of the sources I went through when rewriting the Sultanate of Bijapur article even gave a passing mention, so even if this person did exist, I doubt many reliable academic sources are mentioning him or giving significant coverage. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Military. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I am not able to find even any trivial information on the subject from Google book search. It is clear that the subject is not notable even in history to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:HISTRS. RangersRus (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. If we had something to go on, a book, a thesis, anything, we could at least userfy or redirect it. Right now, without any sources or way to verify him, it could be a hoax or original research, so we should delete it outright. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 26 July 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!} 18:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Operating Theatre Association

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

non-notable article mostly written as an advert LR.127 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. LR.127 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:03, 26 July 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!} 18:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic heritage of Hyderabad

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

Don't see the point of this article. The lead mostly talks about Hyderabad itself and the city's name, and the history section is just a brief overview of the area's history which is already covered extensively in history of Hyderabad. The rest, and majority of the article covers the Muslim architecture of Hyderabad, which is covered in Qutb Shahi architecture (the dynasty which built most of Hyderabad's notable Muslim architecture), list of mosques in Hyderabad, Heritage structures in Hyderabad, India, and Hyderabad#Landmarks. This article is very redundant with those other articles and doesn't serve any good purpose. There would be a better case for this article's existence if the sources treated this article's title as a distinct topic, but they do not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, India, and Telangana. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a Hyderabadi Muslims article which may be a suitable merge target. Left guide (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was actually about it's title, then yes, Hyderabadi Muslims would be a great merge target, but as I said it's mainly just about the general architecture of Hyderabad created by Muslims, and thus if it were to be merged, which I don't think it should be as none of the content is not already covered in any of the possible merge targets, the merge targets would be the ones above which makes the article redundant. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and oppose merger. I could see this being a valid overview of Islamic influence in the culture of Hyderabad, but as it stands the OP is correct; there is no justification for this. It is also, unfortunately, typical of the work of its creator, in that it has a liberal sprinkling of copyright and verifiability issues, which is why I oppose a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources. Page is also WP:SYNTH and the creator of the page inserted opinion in a circular bit of logic. I am also opposed to merge for same reason. RangersRus (talk) 17:13, 20 July 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. There's enough opposition to a redirect that I feel like that AtD just kicks this discussion to RfD so I haven't implemented one. Star Mississippi 14:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Speaker of the British House of Commons election

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

This short article is about an uncontested election, with no information that isn't already present at Lindsay Hoyle. The election itself was not unusual or particularly noteworthy. There have been other uncontested elections of the Commons speaker, but this is the only one with an article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in line with other Speaker nominations and elections. User:WoodElf 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unopposed reelections don't need standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lindsay Hoyle#Speaker of the House of Commons (2019–present) which contains the sentence On 9 July 2024 he was re-elected unopposed as speaker. which tells someone searching for this everything they want to know without having to hunt it out in search results that are not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thryduulf, WP:PRESERVE. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WoodElf. I don't think redirects are really required, as they haven't been used in 2010, 2015 or 2017, when previous unopposed elections for Speaker took place. Greg (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't be mad about a redirect, but there isn't enough content on Hoyle's page to justify it. Plus, the article's title is quite long, so it's unlikely that anyone would type all that out and hit enter. And even if they did, a redirect would just reward them with a single short sentence which basically just tells them the date the election happened. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the president of unanimous elections not having articles. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not sufficient for a stand-alone page. Oppose a redirect as "2024 Speaker of the British House of Commons election" is an unlikely and overly specific search term and I don't think targeting it to Hoyle's BLP is due. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 25 July 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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Floyd

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

Nominating based on lack of notability. Only references are with brief text in minor and local sports news coverage, biography external link is dead. User:WoodElf 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the locality of the sources is irrelevant. As long as it is significant coverage and independent of the subject it can go towards establish notability of the subject. This for instance should be considered significant coverage. However, the subjects needs sustained coverage, that is coverage from another time period than around his hiring at Louisiana–Monroe in July 2017. Alvaldi (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fair bit of SIGCOV over a 30-year career. See [16], [17], [18] [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]/[24]. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources, plus the sources that are already in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Cbl62 provide the requisite WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage provided above. Left guide (talk) 05:04, 23 July 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 No consensus possible‎. A consensus is not going to form while the events are so fluid. This can be revisited, including a potential merger, in a shorter than normal window once the situation is more settled. Star Mississippi 01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden crisis

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

This article's subject is inextricably linked with the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is covered in a dedicated section there. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times, and I believe that this page should be redirected to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, which covers this topic in the context of the broader campaign. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, History, Politics, Popular culture, United States of America, and Delaware. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the user who created the article (ElijahPepe) recently moved "Biden crisis" to "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election". [25] Some1 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign was already redirected, and the creation of this similar page without a consensus to split is entirely inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The context of the campaign is irrelevant here. This article is explicitly not either of the two list articles that were created weeks ago because it covers a larger scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, WP:NPOV violation in the title. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw per nom. and others. I agree that the title violates WP:NPOV and that a standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with age and health concerns of Joe Biden. While I don't see this as an immediate WP:NPOV violation, there is merit behind the fact that there is a crisis among Democrats regarding Biden's electability – even among former President Barack Obama.

Bourne Ballin (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, merge content with age and health concerns of Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign User:WoodElf 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy redirect~~ to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. As noted above, this was already determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. I don't see anything to merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In time, this might not need to be separate from Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, but there is no point trying to keep them separate now. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Users who are pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have not read the article. This is not a list of Democrats who have called for him to withdraw, this is an article about the internal considerations within the campaign. That includes campaign decisions and information on how such a process would occur, including the presumptive virtual roll call and Schumer's decision to delay it. Should he withdraw his nomination, this would be a great article to cover that. Nowhere in this article will there be a list of every representative, or senator, or news organization, calling for Biden to drop out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNN twice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a word on this page needs to be on a separate article, it can all be covered in the campaign article or related pages. I'd suggest expanding Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw with these sources and proposing a split on the talk page rather than creating another overlapping page. If he withdraws, 2024 Democratic National Convention would be a good place for the subsequent procedures. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom -1ctinus📝🗨 21:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Virtually the same article that a prior AfD concluded in favor of redirecting (the list constituted only a part of that article). Don't see much reason why this should be a separate article. Aintabli (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the list was practically the entire article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my vote based on the ever-changing circumstances. Aintabli (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect per the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Little unclear whether this passes the WP:10YT yet, but I could be swayed. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Edit: Keep after the move. I've read the justification for the title's perceived POV, and I still think the title is inappropriate. Even if some WP:RS describe it as "crisis", other RS don't; I'd argue it falls under mixed usage and that we should default to a less emotionally charged title unless there's overwhelming consensus in RS on calling it "the Biden crisis". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and the title is not as supported by RS as it looks like. Three references use it, but only in the headlines, and not in the body like they would if "Biden crisis" was an actual named event rather than headlinese. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that the title has been moved and covers a much more important event. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Biden has now announced his withdrawal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now that Biden has actually withdrew, although it needs a better title. Queen of Hearts ^talk 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He withdrew. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my above redirect vote, that the main campaign article, the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article, and the convention article will all include this and other relevant information and a duplicative page is not necessary; a separate split discussion may be subsequently appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because is it not an historic occasion? Even when Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew from the 1964 presidential election, it was in March; Biden has done it in mid July after a debate. Maurnxiao (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaaaallly speedy keep. He's just dropped out, making this an actual major and notable event, so the subsequent new article is absolutely going to be notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Good faith nomination two days ago, but circumstances have changed. BilledMammal (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obviously notable, incumbent president and democratic nominee withdraws from the race. Precedent with other large American politicians in Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House Personisinsterest (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hugely notable event that will have an impact on the United States and globally. This is Paul (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think Speedy Keep is valid here but an article is definitely warranted now that he has withdrawn. C F A 💬 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Now that the "Biden crisis" is over and has culminated in Biden's resignation, this article's scope has expanded into a much more notable event. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

The withdrawal of a campaign this late into the trail is unprecedented and a noteworthy event in American history. Monological (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This warrants a stand alone article, and is no longer speculation. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that this has actually happened, this is clearly notable and also identifiable in terms of scope. Gust Justice (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Yes, Biden withdrew from the race, and yes it's notable, but we still don't need a separate article. Certain things can simply be in a section even if they are very notable, as the actual content of Biden dropping out can be covered easily in one paragraph in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk)

Keep The withdrawal is a notable event in U.S. political history. Davey2116 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is a very historic moment in US history. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another WP:CONTENTFORK created by WP:RECENTISM when existing articles can contain the information. Splits could be justified in time but this is not the way. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If expanded, keep: the information can be hosted by other wikipedia pages (since the article is pretty short). --Franar8 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has withdrawn and it's clearly notable, also per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Withdrawal. Sure it was a major event, but it should be contained in his campaign page.
Keep This is huge and notable in and of itself. JDiala (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a monumental shakeup of the American political landscape, and will likely have ripples around the world, which would merit an expansion as comments come in. Windrays (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable, first withdrawal by an incumbent since 1968. TheInevitables (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now, let's get the tag off the page ASAP. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You not liking the presence of the tag itself is not really a justification for keeping it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's important news, but we don't need a separate article just for the withdrawal. It's a needless content fork. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very little reasoning behind deletion; Further details regarding the event will inevitably be provided within the forthcoming days, not to mention that this is quite arbitrary given the spectacle of information currently available. Queries regarding why are futile. WP:TOOSOON

TheRevisionary (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was too soon to put it up; it is not too soon to take it down. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of this article violates the policy of WP:RECENT and sets an unmangable precedent. In the future, if (and probably when) American presidents drop out of races, are we going to need to create articles for all those situations too? It would be best to restrict discussion of this event to the existing article on Biden's presidential campaign; we can circle back to the issue later but I don't foresee this being worthy of an entire article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are we going to need to create articles for all those situations too? That would be at most one article every four years. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very notable event and should maintain its own article. I could see it being deleted when it was "Biden crisis", but the official withdrawal makes this a monumental moment in American politics, since the withdrawal/refusal of an eligible incumbent reelection bid hasn't happened in nearly 60 years. AmericanBaath (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although certainly a notable event, it is simply the final act of the notable Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and can be adequately covered there. There is no separate article on the withdrawal of LBJ in 1968, the most recent precedent, making this article look like WP:RECENTISM. Dash77 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because there isn't an article for LBJ in 1968, doesn't mean there couldn't or shouldn't be. In this case, recentism may benefit the ability to build out a comprehensive article about an event that almost certainly merits more than a section underneath the campaign article. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - A merging of all the details in this article can go to the other (per nom). We do not have a corresponding withdrawal article for LBJ (1968 announcement) and the same should be applied here. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. I don't see why we need a separate article for this. The main article isn't even that long. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Procyon117 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep This AfD is too early. The event is still ongoing. GoldWitness (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign Asigooo (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. This should not be its own separate article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 19:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Withdrawal. Per the nom. Lots of duplicate content. Some1 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article's notability has radically changed in light of Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 United States presidential election. I recommend that a closer reviews it in light of this information. KlayCax (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon man/Keep - the title as it is at this particular moment - Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election - is an obviously significant topic on which there obviously is and will continue to be an inordinate amount of significant coverage in reliable sources. This should be kept. ("Biden crisis" we not a good name for the article.) --B (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Biden's withdrawal in the first of a major candidate since 1968, has received overwhelming attention in the press, and easily passed the 10 year test. I believe that this article is now a speedy close under the name: Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. KlayCax (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of events that have unfolded since this AfD was started, I say keep. It's far more historical and notable now. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being notable and "historical" does not change the fact that it does not need a separate article; it can still be all covered in one or two paragraphs in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article, even if it is receiving global coverage. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic will be subject to months, if not years of coverage and analysis due to the unprecedented decision and the weeks of never-before-seen intraparty politicking to get this to happen. You can summarize any number of articles in one or two paragraphs (which is what Main article sections are meant to do). Regardless, the reactions and effects of this decision will be felt quite literally for the rest of American history, and as such should have its own article for present and future analysis of the effects of this decision. Baldemoto (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL reasoning. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it WP:CRYSTAL to say that if the president died, the repercussions would be massive and widely felt? Would we have to wait until we see the repercussions of such an event before making a page about it? This decision has thrown a wrench into the entire American political process, and it should be evidently obvious on the face of it that this will change the entire nature of this presidential race, and, by extension, what happens after the fact. Baldemoto (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is within reason. It's not crystal balling to presume the sun will rise tomorrow, even though there is an infiniteismal chance that it will not and existence will cease due to e.g. a surprise supernova, or false vacuum event. Likewise, there is an infiniteismal chance that this withdrawal will suddenly cease the media buzz (as if it's already insufficient whilst Hawk Tuah Girl survived deletion lol), but let's not be ridiculous. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. To contrast with the last time this happened, there is no separate article explicitly about Lyndon B. Johnson's withdrawal. There are subheadings about it in other articles, however. I think that we should follow this precedent and merge this into the primary-related article because this is a completely partisan nomination-related issue. Joesom333 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually exactly what it means. The change this means for the 2024 presidential election and the inner turmoil this will put the party through is unprecedented. Far beyond one or two paragraphs in another article. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 20:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that Biden has withdrawn. This has made worldwide headlines and is the latest withdrawal in U.S. history before the November election, thus being extremely notable per WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So what it happened? I don't understand what makes this topic so special that it can't just be covered in the campaign and presidency pages. Does every other presidential withdrawal need a page dedicated to it? Wowzers122 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does if the withdrawal is from a current sitting president who had every intention of running again. This is a completely unprecedented decision in American history and one which will have far-reaching repercussions. C'mon, guys. Baldemoto (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time an incumbent president has dropped from the race since 1964. It is historic. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the article about Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into this one. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. Motjustescribe (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Can we get real here? This decision is about as notable as it gets. It fits the bill for WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:COVERAGE, the list goes on. This is a no-brainer, and the matter should have been closed since Biden's withdrawal. Baldemoto (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Keep, and disregard any !votes prior to Biden stepping down on 21 July. The nomination was in good faith I'm sure, but it's no longer relevant. This is a rapidly developing major news event, and the article being nominated was not the same as the article now. Title could use some work. Maybe "Election withdrawal of Joe Biden" would be a bit more succinct than the current title of "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election", but that's neither here nor there. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LASTING - the withdrawal was the culmination of numerous events leading up to it and will have a lasting impact on the election and thus the world at large. — Knightoftheswords 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no need for a stand alone page at this time. Biden's withdrawal is irrelevant to whether this needs to be a stand alone page or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't need it's own page. Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign
Keep - now that the withdrawal has actually happened there should be an article about it. When this was first nominated it was just about speculation/pressure to drop out, and yesterday I would have !voted differently. But now it documents a notable event, rather than a collection of opinions and rumours, so keep. Would be good to merge Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into it. BugGhost 🦗👻 20:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a historic occasion and there is no reason to redirect the page. 2605:59C8:149A:1210:681F:BF3F:2703:B21E (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is arguably one of the biggest moments in US political history in the last 50 years. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still part of a wider narrative which already has a page, and I'm not seeing any compelling argument for why this specific moment within that narrative requires its own page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems curious, to me, to delete a page, or advocate deleting a page, about something that has... happened, and very much been reported to have happened. ——Serial Number 54129 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event that has been covered by news outlets is notable. This event is of course notable, and is widely covered, but that doesn't mean we need a separate page for it. Not every event that makes global headlines needs a separate page if it can be covered without size concerns in the main article, which in this case is Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, one-year-old editor, I was clearly referring to the fact, not that it happened, but that it has been subsequently covered in multiple reliable, independent sources. Thanks for your advice though. ——Serial Number 54129 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, eleven-year-old editor, I'm well aware that it has been covered in multiple reliable, independent sources. I agree that this topic is very much notable, but we do not need a separate article for it as it can be adequately be covered in full in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Not every event that would pass the GNG needs a separate article if it would not be very long as such and would not have size concerns if it were simply a section in the main article, which would be fine here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't exaggerate, Flemmish Nietzsche, it's only really ten. Eleven is almost an insult. ——Serial Number 54129 21:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. How disparaging is it to link the words "one year old editor" to the contributing editor's username. Clearly your ten or eleven years as an "editor" have not taught you any degree of respect for other human beings. Perhaps you know that many people in science and academia also disparage Wikipedia? Have you ever considered why that might be? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, that article should be merged into this one. When history looks back on Biden's 2024 campaign, most ink will be spilled about his decision to withdraw. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now there is no way of knowing how long the article could be and due to the event happening merely a few hours ago there isnt enough information due to the fact it may violate WP:RECENT Takis S1 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into this page. Combined together they could make a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election" name now that he has withdrawn per historic occasion. Nadzik (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the article creator of Age and health concerns of Joe Biden, I say keep this page and merge the contents of Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into this article. – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, given the notability of the event, merge the age and health concerns article into this to illustrate the lead up to the decision. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will endorse merging per above if several reliable contributors volunteer for this - each article is already substantial at this point, and I expect a lossless merge and thereby necessary restructuring will be at least three hours' work. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:AEA8 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page under the current title Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election and merge the content of Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into it, as others above have already suggested. BochiBochiGalaxy (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Given the preceding weeks and considerable reporting going forward this article has already met the requirements for standing on its own. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an example of why we are failing NOTNEWS. Way too detailed coverage for what we are supposed to cover for an encyclopedic summary of the news. Coverage in the campaign article is far more appropriate. --Masem (t) 21:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event and a first. aggarwala2727 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep since this is really a first-timer in decades of US political history. One of a kind. --Fadesga (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, and I concur with @BochiBochiGalaxy. Ideally this should be linked in the See Also section of the Biden article SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see how originally it would've made sense to remove the page and merge its contents into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, however due to him stepping down from the race, I feel like this article has become notable enough to remain, due to it being the first premature end of campaign for an incumbent since Lyndon B. Johnson's withdrawal in March 1968 (so 56 years, 3 months and 22 days now) and the first withdrawal of an incumbent after the presidential debates since they began in earnest in 1960. maemolol, arbiter of æ (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. It may end up being merged later, but this should be left to develop. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historically significant event which already has a large amount of context useful to document separate from the main article, a section on the main article would likely miss important information ObjectOrientedCat (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as it's a current event and people will be searching for information for it and an article will offer more information in a more organized manner. Maybearidan (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. We're not running a current affairs ticker - this is an encyclopedia, and there is no reason for an encyclopedia to treat today's events as so completely separate from the wider campaign that they need their own article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and merge) for now, if nothing else. But I'd recommend waiting a bit longer to see how lengthy and well-sourced this article becomes, to determine whether or not it deserves to be independent of other articles. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a real discussion? Of course we will keep this article. This covers a topic that holds verifiable information about a real-world subject and contributes to the overall comprehensiveness of human knowledge.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that justify it being a separate article? That's what's contested here, and no amount of people saying 'it's notable' or 'it's true' or 'it's verifiable' or 'it's a current news story' addresses that key question. As with the ITN nomination for this story, people are so intent on defending the idea that it's important that they're not stopping to answer the question posed, which is 'should we handle it like this?' GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the length of the article. As it's currently written, it's long enough to be independent. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, as this is simply the end of that campaign. Resist, folks, resist, the urge to make new articles for every single event just because it's piping hot out of the news. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It is in fact possible to write succinctly. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to be too big to easily merge into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is a large article. Also, this withdrawal is a historically significant event that can easily justify having its own article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's relatively little new content not covered in a half dozen other articles. Take away the padding, and the transcribed text of Biden's letter, and you've got a few decent paragraphs. More words doesn't mean better writing. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep - per BugGhost. Jdcomix (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: OK, I am not a registered user on here, but as an unregistered user, my thoughts reflect the thousands of Wikipedia readers who may see this article and go "This is being nominated for deletion?!" The removal of Kevin McCarthy is notable enough for an article but this is not?? This is breaking news and has made headlines worldwide, which is a given as this is a huge event that marks a literal turning point in the election. It's not just about Joe Biden's campaign ending, it's about all that led up to it and all that will result from it. This is historic cause a sudden (and I mean sudden) revolt against a party's presumptive nominee is unheard of in modern times, and no one has ever withdrawn so close to the election, after the debate and so close to the Democratic convention. This convention will be like no other because of this. There is so much to write about here. Some of y'all are saying this is recentism since the withdrawal of LBJ doesn't have an article, but this article already has a substantial amount of content cause of how notable it is, and more to come, cause the effects of this are still unfolding. It has made headlines worldwide already cause it is just so unprecedented in recent times and again, it is a literal turning point in the election. Whatever precedents exist on Wikipedia, yall just cannot say that this is not notable enough for an article. 71.28.113.196 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an extremely significant event in world history and in the history of the USA. Only twice in 235 years has the incumbent President has not sought re-election. The LJB case was different for a whole host of reasons. The Biden case is different and significant for a whole host of reasons - in particular the fact that the decision was prima facie not of the President's making. The day before withdrawing he insisted for the umpteenth time that he would not withdraw - it should be clear that he was ousted, that he did not genuinely quit of his own volition. That is politically significant. Nobody knows what the next four and a half years will hold - but today's announcement virtually guarantees that Republican Donald Trump will be President for a second term from 2025 to 2029. Biden's withdrawal is a history-changing moment - we won't know how significant a history-changing moment it was until the next five years have played out. Here is a tenuous analogy that all-the-same is, I think, pertinent, interesting and undeniable - JFK's assassination has its own WP page (it's not merged with his main article). JFK's assassination brought about an involuntary end to his Presidency, and the ripples of that moment are still being felt to this day. Does anyone really believe that Biden voluntary ended his re-election campaign? How can you insist yesterday that you WILL CONTINUE and today announce that you are stepping down? While his Presidency continues for the time-being, his re-election campaign is dead. Perhaps between now and January 2025 we'll see him resign the Presidency to his VP Kamala Harris. That's a "what if" scenario. Is it likely? I think so. Taking all this into account, today is a momentous occurrence in US political history. Every President (except those assassinated while in office) has experienced around 75 days of being a Lame Duck President. We now have a situation where Joe Biden faces 183 days of Lame Duck Presidential status. That is unprecedented (pun acknowledged but not intentional). If you doubted the suggestion that Biden will soon resign, perhaps you will think again. Whether he stays or resigns, today's announcement is a landmark moment akin to JFK's assassination or Nixon's resignation.

Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's some WP:CRYSTAL nonsense you've got there, not to mention a lot of editorialising about the campaign, rather than about the substantive question for this discussion page. Nothing you've said justifies today's events specifically having a page that's separate from the main one about Biden's campaign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my vote and I have discussed my reasons. I will not be disenfranchised nor blithely dismissed by your pair of sentences. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Beacuse this article don't independiently reflect the moment, ok 181.39.69.107 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This changed drastically after the withdrawal but still should be redirected to JBs 2024 campaign. Bohbye (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Juicy Thicc Keep. This is a major historical event in US political history and is an incredibly rare anomaly in American political history. Biden's withdrawal is a significant event in not only this election, but in American history. It is a watershed moment for the 2024 Presidential Election. TheCubingCow (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is significant in US history we can't just delete it now. CAnny (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree 27skierman (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but Rewrite better authentic WP:ARTICLETITLE

QalasQalas (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it isn’t that much info since it is recent, there will be more information that will be added into the article. Additionally, this event is pretty rare since LBJ not accepting his second term as president in 1968. Zekromu88 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Maintaining such a page is unnecessary as this could be covered in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS, articles for other major announcements like LBJ in 1968 don't exist, and no additional content. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally, a candidate dropping out of a primary race is not noteworthy enough to have its own article. However, the unprecedented event of an incumbent president dropping out of a primary race after securing a majority of delegates, alongside the weeks/months of prominent Democrats calling for Biden to drop out, is significant enough to warrant its own article. The 2024 Biden campaign article can provide a summary explaining that he dropped out, and this article can go into more detail. I see this article's scope as going into more detail.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep An Absolute Landmark Decision that changes everything about the 2024 U.S Presidential Election. Why delete it? InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are already plenty of articles about that election, including specifically about Biden's campaign, which could carry this information. You can Capitalise As Many Common Words as you like - that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenevieveDEon I feel that you are out of order for criticizing and dismissing another editor simply because they capitalised certain words in their text. Some people do that unconsciously out of habit, some people do it because of paralexical conditions, some people do it simply for emphasis. And above all, this discussion is about whether or not the article is "redundant", to use your argot - therefore it is fallacious to assert "that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article" since the "argument" (n.b. WP prefers the word discussion) is concerned with the very issue of possible redundancy.

Keep - As a wider point, I think it is crucial that editors contributing to this discussion set aside any party-political allegiances and consider the noteworthiness of today's events purely from a future-historical standpoint. As a British citizen I can happily say that my views on the historical importance of this article (as a standalone article) are not influenced by party-politics. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also British, and I'm revolted by the wild level of American exceptionalism on display both in this discussion and the ITN one. And while drawing attention to another user's capitalisation might be a little unfair, I was doing it to underscore my wider point: a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed for it when there are already other articles. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is heartening that you seem to have calmed down, thank you for that. Being frank, I'm not interested in your nationality or how revolting you are.

You lost me at "a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed". Genuinely, without the merest hint of reflecting your belligerence, isn't the significance of the event the absolutely decisive, key factor in whether a separate article is required? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The decisive factor when it's a subtopic like this is whether there's enough material to justify a separate article. Otherwise we can and should merge back to the main article. See WP:SPLIT. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm using 'argument' in the sense of 'a series of reasoned statements directed at a conclusion', rather than the sense of 'a row'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you already !voted - I just saw you responding to me below your original !vote, and yet you've also bolded the word 'keep' down here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps should try not to be so triggered by Capital letters or typographical formatting. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what triggered means. Please do something about your double-!vote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known anybody who was triggered by the word triggered before. As to the double-vote issue - I strongly suspect the outcome isn't triggered by the number of times the word keep appears in bold. I'm sure it's much more scientific than that - like using math or some such technology. I'm tickled at how you initially tried to deny me my one vote, by being blithely dismissive, and now you're accusing me of election-interference by taking two! I hope you'll keep on editing with such fervour. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A potentially epochal event, given the recent state of the presidential race and what's at stake. — The Anome (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: the topic of this AFD has fundamentally changed part way through, with Biden's withdrawal announcement. A lot of earlier !votes are irrelevant given the change in factual situation (from pressure on Biden to withdraw to his actual withdrawal). I think it makes this AFD too confusing. Close it, and then if people want to delete the current article, those who do so can open a new nomination starting from a blank slate. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major event right now, it appears on the current events page, and it would be inappropriate to delete it, at least for now, at a later date, it could be merged with other articles concerning Bidens run, however, for now it should be kept as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieMoomin07 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close per SomethingForDeletion: I agree, this seems to be such an imprecise discussion by now that it's best off to close it and start anew, where the arguments for and against can be put much more clearly. If, for whatever reason, that's improper AfD procedure (I don't know, I'm rarely round these parts), then Keep. Gazamp (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign per above. Plenty of candidates have withdrawn from presidential elections, and plenty of sitting leaders have resigned from positions of power. We do not, however, create dedicated articles for this. Instead, attempting to keep it as part of a parent article where the entire context is provided. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, there are a few instances where there are articles for leaders resigning positions of power at Category:Resignations. Not particularly saying whether there should be or not, just food for thought! Gazamp (talk) Gazamp (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. However, I must add that they are either disambiguation/redirects to political crisis/coup articles, or themselves being a standalone article about the developments leading to the resignation. For example, if Resignation of Jacinda Ardern is to be deleted, there are no alternative articles that describe the complete dynamic leading up to the resignation. In Biden's case the campaign article should be sufficient. Having two articles is unnecessary duplication of the exact same things. They both touch upon his presidency, they both touch upon his primary performance, they both talk about his debate performance, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think I still disagree, I definitely see your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify! Gazamp (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating for just deleting over one hundred editor's points-of-view and starting again. On the face of it that does sound like improper procedure, yes. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention, just adding my two cents onto what is a very unwieldly discussion. Seeing as what everyone's talking about has changed so much in the few hours that we've been talking about it, I don't think it serves any of us well to continue. 100% fair enough if others whole-heartedly disagree though - that's what this is about. Gazamp (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, I am free to opine against the tide. Thirdly, I did not advocate to delete it. Frankly, I do not understand what argument you are trying to make here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread the thread, man. My reply was to Gazamp. Indeed you are free to opine, as is everybody else (which is kind of like a democracy). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I was really confused about that response, assuming it to be directed towards me. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Apology accepted. It can be confusing. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign which already discusses his run for re-election and the urges for him to withdraw prior to doing so, which renders this page a bloated and completely unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK, though at least the biased "Biden crisis" title has thankfully been changed to "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete/Redirect: This Article is filler garbage, please at least redirect this to the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Its ridiculous that people are saying keep as incumbent presidents such as Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson who all withdrew from their campaigns don't have dedicated articles. Please my fellow Wikipedians, open your eyes. (Sorry for the aggressive tone). FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone was very aggressive but I for one magnanimously accept your apology madam. As an issue of fact, neither Truman nor LBJ withdrew from their campaigns. Both chose not to run for reelection and therefore neither had "campaigns" from which to "withdraw". You also fall foul of the (really rather serious) argumentative fallacy of presenting a finite number (i.e. two) of (factually incorrect, as it happens) occurrences as proof of many occurrences - when in actuality there are only two factually incorrect occurrences to support your argument. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic is subject of extensive analysis by numerous independent secondary sources. Also, it can be viewed as a WP:SPINOFF article for the extremely long Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article and thus not subject to WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 23:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election is an easy pass of the GNG and a legitimate and necessary SPINOFF of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Calls for delete, merge, and redirect are not rooted in policy/guidelines. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which can absolutely cover this. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE are the main directives here. "Biden Crisis" is definitely not a neutral term to categorize this anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was renamed in the middle of this discussion, and thus the title is of no relevance to the current discussion. SufficientChipmunk3 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so chipmunk. And @David Fuchs - "anyhow", especially in this "context", is a horrific, anal-sphincter-clench-inducing, violation of the English language. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an extremely importan and unprecedented moment in US History. But the article's title is unnecessarily long. Something like 2024 Biden Campign Withdrawal would be much better and more concise. Tomhol811 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - highly publicized, detailed to the point where merging it would be way too much for other articles. also, merge calls for Biden article here, maybe. keep it all in one place. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:186F:253E:39AC:F60E (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly Obvious Keep, the RS are abundant, this will probably be the subject of an "In the news", not-quite-but-almost unique historical event, what more needs to be said? Joe (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI "blatantly" and "obvious" mean the same thing, so using them together creates an unneeded redundancy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI they have different connotations, uses and "energies". If something is "obvious" it's readily self-evident. If it's "blatant", it's outspokenly clear and doesn't even try subtlety. Etymology: Stuffy Latin vs Spenserian poetry.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject doesn't lack for coverage and the article has plenty of sources. Tisnec (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously more than notable and significant enough in line with other articles of the type.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep This is the first incumbent president to withdraw from reelection in 60 years (since Lyndon B. Johnson), and more notably it happened only 4 months before the actual election. The close proximity to the election is notable for the campaign for whoever becomes the final Democratic candidate since they'll be starting (or gaining traction) so late. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an incumbent President being basically pushed out from reelection by his party is absolutely unprecedented, and considering the admittedly low standard for stand-alone articles regarding incredibly specific things concerning US presidents (we have a covfefe article and its not even that short) this absolutely deserves an article, coverage of the behind the scenes plotting before this even will undoubtedly come out and cant just be shoved into the primary article. If anything, the pro forma primary is so insignificant in comparison that it could well be mentioned in passing in this article. — jonas (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait, why is everyone so quick to place deletion tags on pages that are far less worthy of being deleted than other pages on WP? C'mon, man. Folks, the idea that this subject hasn't been sweeping the nation's news is total malarkey. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the deletion tag seems to be from before Biden dropped out, hence why it was originally called "Biden crisis". Unnamed anon (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe the people who object to this article hold on to some old version? The article has evolved tremendously since the nomination. Probably this AfD is best closed as keep or no consensus because reactions seem to be confused. It would force editors to face the new situation. gidonb (talk)

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 redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Michel

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

Doesn't seem to have received significant coverage. All I could find on this player was a 1961 Chicago Tribune newspaper article that he was playing in goal for an amateur team participating in the National Amateur Cup, which is barely a passing mention. Another site suggests a date of birth for this player, but that's all I could find, other than a Czech namesake who ran for political office in 1989. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. C 679 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I didn't find any secondary RS. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 24 July 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 redirect‎ to Shooting at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's trap or a subsection thereof a desired Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa-Anne Smith

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's trap: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are all primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything better. Let'srun (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's trap#Qualification round. I found no evidence of passage WP:GNG. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:32, 21 July 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!} 04:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yawa No Dey End

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

Just like Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP), this critically fails WP:NSINGLE. No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. In this case, this song isn't notable. Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same as the other one, no coverage in WP:RS. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:33, 19 July 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!} 04:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Sweet (Majeeed EP)

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

The article in question is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC unless scrutinized closely. However, it notably fails to meet WP:NALBUM or any of the applicable subsections due to a lack of sources establishing its notability. The content primarily consists of music releases, alongside interviews and passing mentions, none of which sufficiently establish notability on any grounds.

For reference, you may review archived copies of links from The PGM Club and The Guardian Nigeria here:

[26]
[27]

These archives provide accessible evidence regarding the sources mentioned. I am also very much skeptical about the notability of the musician himself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all this album has is a few chart rankings, which may indicate notability but do not confer it, and apart from that there's no WP:SIGCOV, so it fails WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:31, 19 July 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.

This article can be restored,, ideally to Draft space, upon request. I am surprised that it was brought to AFD less than 45 minutes after it was created. Content creators are generally given more time to work on a new article before deletion is considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community Based Approaches to Sustainable Land Use in Rwanda

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

Appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article about a specific topic, and reads like it is building a case to demonstrate the importance of a particular approach. A more encyclopedic way to go at it would be to write an article about the general topic itself (Land use in Rwanda) reflecting how it is treated in the sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Rwanda. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Chaotic Enby, Thank you so much for your swift feedback, I really appreciate your feedback. Honestly, I want to learn more, I love research and writing, but I need guidance. Marking my article for deletion is not discouraging me, I need to be mentored because I feel like I am yet to develop confidence in contributing to Wikipedia, but I would love to keep making contributions, and I know I need time to learn

I will conduct research to better understand the differences between essays and encyclopedia articles. I would love to be guided properly to fixing the article instead of deleting it, as I will learn and then modify it to get it right.

I am open to learning and to make contributions

KingVik Planet (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are zero recorded uses of that term, so an article solely devoted to it doesn't make much sense. This content could maybe be kept, though, and introduced into the relevant articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:05, 19 July 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!} 10:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Makhlouf

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

No indication the subject meets the general notability guideline. Only source indicates he is the fifth-choice goalkeeper for his club and he has not played at senior level. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the first team in the past 2 years

And entered the African list for Al Ahly this year so he must have a Wikipedia page Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft According to soccerway he hasn't played any games. So those trophies? Are they really earned? If the article was improved with better sourcing I might send to draft, in it's current state I would delete. Also @ Mohamedmokhtar22 Why do you have two accounts? Govvy (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage for this individual. All I can find [28], a few brief words about him. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have only One account but I changed the username.

Second, In African Championships if he entered the saquad in any match the whole championship it will be earnd for him Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.yallakora.com/egyptian-league/2795/news/447474/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B3-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85-%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A-%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3-

This link from Yallakora the famous site about Mostafa Makhlouf Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV. I found several sources, but they don't seem reliable [29][30][31][32]. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way don't they seem reliable, User:Tau Corvi? They all seem quite reliable, and not passing coverage, to me. Nfitz (talk) Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 24 July 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!} 10:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Corsica destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company ever without any attempt to summarise. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to a full list of all the destinations that Air Corsica has ever served and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is Aeroroutes, an industry-press blog run by an enthusiast that re-posts company schedule data "sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website", the other of which is an article from TradeArabia News Service based on a company press-release. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic. In fact the data on this page is largely unsourced but I assume obtained from Air Corsica's website, which is realistically the only real source for this information. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and France. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC is not referenced here, you appear to be responding to an argument not made. FOARP (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I'm not keen to have another slew of AfDs on these lists, I recognize that the British Airways AfD and subsequent DRV do not prohibit more AfDs from taking place, and I concur with the nom that this particular list should not be on Wikipedia. There is only one source that verifies all the cities that Air Corsica flies to as of July 2024: the airline's schedule. Therefore it's true that the information is verifiable, but that's not the point. Our encyclopedia is not meant to be a mirror of airline databases. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article lacks sources describing the destinations as a grouping from secondary outlets and as such WP:NLIST is not met. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 23 July 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 redirect‎ to List of iWantTFC original programming#Drama. as a viable AtD. If someone feels protecting the redirect is helpful, feel free. Star Mississippi 13:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractured (miniseries)

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

Technically a second nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractured (Mini-series) was the first (and the article creator then re-created it under this title a month later, seemingly about an hour after re-creating it under the original title and getting G4-ed). My Before revealed no sources discussing this web series in any great detail past routine announcements, and while the current sources look ok at first glance, but one is independent.

[33][34][35][36] were all written by the production company, which has a financial incentive to write about their own shows.
[37] appears independent, but scrolling to the bottom shows the letters PR in bold at the bottom. That, the tone, and the lack of an author byline means I'm confident saying that this is a Press Release.
[38] is the only okayish source, but the first few lines (only part I can access) show that it's just regurgitating the press release, with no attempts at a review, commentary, or discussion past the premise. It doesn't show notability, but even if it did it would be one source. That's simply not enough.

And yes, I did consider a G4, but it's been a year and I have no idea what the original article looked like. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Previous AfD demonstrated that the user kept moving article back into article namespace after being repeatedly moved into draftspace, one time even while the AfD was ongoing. I don't trust the creator to not do the same thing here again. Sources also do not demonstrate notability. Procyon117 (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_iWantTFC_original_programming#Drama: opposed to deletion given cast and production coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont revert the edit for IP address 2001:4453:6AC:6F00:1035:EE0B:CAB2:8F28 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2001:4453:6AC:6F00:1035:EE0B:CAB2:8F28, your edit to the article up for deletion, was reverted by myself, on the grounds that you removed the AFD template from an active discussion. AFD templates and messages must not be removed until the discussion is closed. Please familiarise yourself with the rules, and if you wish to dispute the deletion, you're better to do it here, than by preventing people from finding the discussion. Dane|Geld 17:41, 24 July 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!} 10:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Double

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

Defunct game studio originally created as a sub-stub, was unable to find any sources in an online and VG magazine search. Fails WP:NCORP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list of games, virtually no encyclopedic value as is. IgelRM (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notable games but not so notable studio. No SIGCOV anywhere. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:06, 26 July 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 speedy keep‎. No reason given for moving to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Skyshiftertalk 10:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024 global IT outages

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

This needs to be moved to draftspace [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. No reason by the nominator was given and this is a serious and global issue which is being reported by the media worldwide. We can decide later on if we need to delete it if it is not notable (see WP:RUSHDELETE). ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As long as the article's subject is notable, and the content is fine, there is no reason to delete the article. Gust Justice (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As it is a current ongoing event, it is better to keep the article while simultaneously updating the article. Note that I will also support this argument on every future ongoing events, whether it’s an assassination attempt, terrorist event, or even massive global affecting IT outage. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly a major, global story. Why on earth has this been nominated for deletion? I'm tired of people constantly nominating stuff that's obviously notable! Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A major event caused by CrowdStrike, just like the assassination attempt days ago. AnimMouse (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving to draft would likely lead to the contents being added to CrowdStrike's corporate profile so reducing its effectiveness. Thincat (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly a major global event, where many countries were affected. This should remain in article space. Procyon117 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 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. ✗plicit 13:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germania destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:V.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.

This is a WP:V failure because none of these sources are from July 2018, but this is par for the course for these articles. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Germany. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because providing what a transportation company does like this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RFC is not relied on here, and WP:NOT is not the only grounds for deletion either - you've been on here long enough to know that the sourcing for this article is failing. Hell, we've both canned enough articles for having exactly this kind of sourcing. FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just Germania's route map in list form, and we aren't supposed to be a directory of airline destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Fisher Jr.

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

Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Entertainment, and Illinois. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he doesn't surpass WP:NOPAGE, then an WP:ATD is a redirect to 100th Illinois General Assembly. Ultra-short term politicians certainly have the capacity to be notable (see List of members of the United States Congress by brevity of service, for instance), so that argument alone isn't enough. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the topic and the available recent citations, I'm not even sure that that would be the best target. Following the nominator's argument that the political stint isn't notable, the best target would therefore be List of Jeopardy! contestants. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best^[a] WP:THREE so far:
1. Cuevas, Jailene (July 16, 2024). "Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings takes 'cheap shot directed' at Illinois contestant and former senator". The Mirror US. Daily Mirror.
2. Lusk, Darian (18 July 2024). "Jeopardy! champ Jay Fisher nabs 3rd win despite 'unfairly difficult' last rounds". The U.S. Sun. The Sun.
3. Holmes, Martin (18 July 2024). "'Jeopardy!' Champ Jay Fisher Reveals Shocking Connection to Elvis Presley". TV Insider.

Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today,^[b] there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.

Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL. The brevity of the term seems to me to make him more notable, not less (it's unusually short). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. The coverage of him as a Jeopardy champ is just the cherry on top. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MicrobiologyMarcus. Subject passes WP:NPOL, and arguably WP:GNG as well. Sal2100 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."
^ While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

Keep - the presumption is strong to keep state legislators’ articles, and in any case, he has had significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 26 July 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!} 04:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Antalya

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

I've already copied the introduction into the Antalya article. This is a short article that doesn't have much scope for expansion as a stand alone article. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many book references are available on this topic. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, I'm sure tourists travel there, but coverage isn't strictly about that. [39] or [40] are vaguely about the concept. We'd need OR to bring the article together, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete Antalya#Economy should be expanded to have a tourism section that can include a list/description of major destination and split when necessary. This is just bullet points of coastal municipalities in the city. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - it may be that an article could be written on this topic, but the current stub isn't any sort of attempt at that, and it says nothing that isn't now available at Antalya. Delete with possibility of re-creation.

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!} 04:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore–Spain relations

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

This article is based on primary sources, including mostly from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Singapore, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The only non-government sources I could find for this were 1 and 2 They focus exclusively on the economic relations between Spain and Singapore, and I don't think they constitute stand alone notability, as most of the content of those sources speaks in the larger context of EU-Singapore relations. I might suggest redirecting to Singapore-European Union relations. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Yilloslime (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term plus Singapore-European Union relations makes no mention of Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 20 July 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local coverage, such as what has been added here thus far, is usually not permitted for organizations per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think we need to hear from more editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in the page for a pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:AUD local coverage such as the Ozarks First, Ozarks Sports Zone, and a local radio station (the three sources in the article currently) does not establish notability under WP:NORG for any of these sports leagues. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AUD says news coverage must be regional - which is what the "Ozarks" news sources are. GuyBanks (talk) 21:37, 24 July 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. ✗plicit 07:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K-rupt

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO as search turns up barely two pages of local coverage of his death with next to nothing about his music. No notable discography, chart activity or awards over the course of his brief career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: basically no coverage apart from his death, which is not enough for reliability, although will probably change my vote if the claims for a single being charted can be sourced. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:16, 19 July 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, India, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Florida company, with an article sourced to Indian news sources, seems a bit odd... They exist, but there is no coverage of them we'd use, that isn't PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NCORP, also appears to violate WP:SOAPBOX. ADifferentMan (talk) 10:24, 19 July 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 merge‎ to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

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

No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.

But with the article at 2,614 bytes (a stub to end all stubs), merge vs. deletion is a difference without a distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy per comments of SecretName101 and others. A standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the earlier comments. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we decide to delete this Article, Wikipedia could face bias allegations. Think about it: Joe Biden's Campaign had (before he stepped out of the race) an Article, Kamala Harris has one, Donald Trump has one, Jill Stein has one, Cornel West has one, RFK Jr., and so on. Is it fair to not have one for this campaign? No, it isn't. This campaign DOES have notability. Here's just one example of such coverage: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/constitution-party-randall-terry-election-2024-00154790. Currently, the Constitution Party is on the ballot in over 12 states. Why shouldn't it's Presidential candidate get an Article? - Avishai11 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHER and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Randall Terry. Media outlets do not seem to consider his campaign especially notable. Just because someone makes the ballot doesn't automatically mean their campaign deserves a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignore the usual shrieking about bias. We cover what reliable sources cover. This page is useless, his 2024 "campaign" should be mentioned at his BLP, nothing more. Don't think a redirect is necessary as it is unlikely to be a common search term. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into his article. I’m not swayed by allegations that we’d be accused of favoritism. It’s literally the top bad argument in AfD. Think of the children and no true Scotsman and all that are just another logical fallacy out of many. We’re a private charity, not a public benefit. As of now, there are no reliable sources; that includes Politico, which is just a fancy blog. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 26 July 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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet

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

Neutral nomination. Bringing here for consensus after disputed draftification and re-creation at Burns Road Kay Romeo Juliet (2024) by a number of socks. Not alleging libra is a sock, but this needs resolution in one direction or the other as the current situation is not sustainable. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will withhold my vote for now, until I make sure if it meets the GNG or not. But it's worth noting that the article on this topic has been created multiple times by socks of our prolific WP:PE Nauman335 and if this is also a case of UPE, it would be a clear violation of WP:TOU. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama: for now, as a compromise; but opposed to deletion given coverage on production; bylined review: [41]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC) or Keep given the other bylined review in a notable media, added recently with other sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Redirection make sense, to me as well. By the way, do I need to reiterate that youlinmagazine is not a RS and should not be used to meet the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You can reiterate what you wish, but there is absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable and it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined (:D) source for verification about the content of the program, in the present case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So what if there's no consensus for Youlin yet? Sometimes one should Ignore all rules and use WP:COMMONSENSE because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And indeed it can be used on the target page as a relatively independent bylined Who said one can't use it? However, I mentioned that one cannot use it to justify GNG, especially since the author of this review piece is a guest contributor with merely two published articles under their by-line. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama although it received coverage but being a creator of this article, i dont want to entertain socks as the page is badly infected by socks just after its creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to, List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama as topic on lack it's notability and cited sources clearly not yet shown the notability to standa_lone.223.123.11.155 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 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 merge‎ to Pilish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadae

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

Another incredibly niche subgenre of poetry, actually I can't really see the difference between this and Pilish, which I have also nominated for deletion. The sources do not seem to be significant coverage from reliable sources. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Mathematics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two sentences into Pilish as another example of pi-constrained writing; I can't find refs for cadae as a form beyond those already given. Adam Sampson (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the fib (another mathematics-inspired form of poetry), the cadae seem to have little notability outside of being examples for Pilish, so I think merging there (or, should that end up being merged, Piphilology) is fine. Certainly the term should not be a red link. —Kusma (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: cadae seems to be merely an example of pilish, and has near to none specific coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:10, 19 July 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrew and the redirect vote was striked out. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Henson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources utilized all lack independence from the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jim Henson Company -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - I have added a number of news articles covering Henson. These include coverage of her being named president of The Harvard Lampoon, work at Warner Bros., and Columbia Pictures.^[1]^[2]^[3] The articles date back to 1982, and are an indication of significant coverage that spans multiple years, well before she became CEO of the Jim Henson Company. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The three New York Times sources added by DaffodilOcean clearly provided enough SIGCOV on the subject person and satisfied GNG, not to mention her numerous executive producer roles which should fulfill WP:CREATIVE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear meets SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would withdraw but we have a vote for a redirect. I support keeping the article based on the excellent sourcing improvements made to the article. Thanks to all who worked on it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

Keep: Since nomination, many reliable sources have been added to the article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:02, 19 July 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.

[1] I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."

[2] While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.

[:1-3] Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[:2-4] Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[5] Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]