Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 23

Guide to deletion

Layne Harper

Layne Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly advertorialized (to the point that I strongly suspect WP:AUTOBIO even though I can't prove it) WP:BLP of an actor and musician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or musicians. As always, actors and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- but this is referenced almost entirely to directory entries that are not support for notability at all, with the only semi-reliable source being a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better, but does not get him over GNG in and of itself if it's the strongest source in the mix, per WP:INTERVIEWS).
And further, the claimed "breakthrough" is a bit part as a supporting character (unnamed in the provided source) in a film that's still about a year away from release, which is obviously not the kind of role that can clinch an automatic free pass over NACTOR without adequate sourcing.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to cite much better sourcing, or from having to have a much more neutral and objective writing tone, than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: "Vibrant heart of ... with a diverse cultural tapestry" is the first red flag. As expected, The Source (source #2) is literally the first hit and the only one in a RS. There's a rich blend of, sorry, lack of references for this individual. Nothing we can use to build a rich blend of an article with a vibrant heart. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: And his photo is directly from Imdb. Red flag #3. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google search results are mostly social media / self-published sites. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. IMDB does give the name of his character, but even if we considered that a reliable source, it'd be far from enough. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, which is indeed very PR-like. LadyofShalott 12:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Strengths and weaknesses (personality)

Strengths and weaknesses (personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essay - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. It is indeed a WP:ESSAY and therefore fails the second test of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, but the article should not remain at this title. If it is not deleted it should be moved to Strengths and weaknesses. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:ESSAY and has no encyclopedic value Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Social Sciences University of Ankara

Social Sciences University of Ankara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page was a redirect of a different university so i deleted the redirect and now the page is empty Editor of Universities (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The nom means that Social Sciences University of Ankara i.e., tr:Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi is not University of Ankara. - Altenmann >talk 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Notes: I have repaired some malformed syntax in this nomination by reapplying {{subst:afd2}}. I am also not sure if simply blanking the previous redirect (which is, on a technical level, not the same as deletion) to bring this to AfD was entirely correct — redirects are generally handled at RfD, but in looking at the page history this could also be interpreted as an objection to a blank-and-redirect from 2019 (AfDs in that realm normally restore the article content, often concurrently with the nomination, but that was unsourced so I'm hesitant to do so here, even procedurally). (The BLAR was contested at the time too, but with Turkish-language content that does not need to return.) Beyond that I provide no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Nothing resembling a WP:DELREASON has been given. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Although this article has remained unsourced since its creation, I've restored the version before it redirected to the wrong article and a promotional account added content in the Turkish language. The primary question here should be whether this institution is notable. A quick preliminary search doesn't return much independent and reliable coverage. Might have to dig further to find appropriate sources. Aintabli (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Palamon Capital Partners

Palamon Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

nonnoitable private equity firm - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Non notable corporation with no sources except that they bought another company. Wikipedia is not a directory or catalog of every business. I do complement the article's author, however. They did a wonderful job in formatting. Bluefist ^talk 02:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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. I hope those editors arguing to Keep this article spend some time now improving it to address issues brought up by editors advocating Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong monad

Strong monad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; a definition pulled from a research-paper with insufficient usage by others. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or TNT if someone has the expertise. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's no even content worth merging. Tercer (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Many mathematics articles do suffer from being written at the graduate student level. However, we are not here to judge people's prose, but instead to determine if the article meets our notability guidelines (in this case, WP:NMATH and/or WP:GNG). I'm able to find a good number of reliable sources that cover this subject, even modern ones, including "What makes a monad strong?" (2022) (see also: related conference presentation), "Scope ambiguities, monads, and strengths" (2017), "Arrows are strong monads" (2011), among other sources. Since editing can fix the issues raised here, and the subject is notable, the article should be kept, or at least not deleted wholesale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What you cite pretty much looks like primary sources. While these establish the existence of the subject, they do not establish its notability. An artcle cannot be based solely on primary sources. The article was tagged since 2022, but it was basically untouched since 2006 save formatting. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    A read through What makes a monad strong?, for example, indicates that it is absolutely a secondary source with respect to the strength of monads. And even "Notions of computation and monads" (1991) provides a survey on the work of prior mathematicians on the concept of strong monads (for example, see the discussion on pages 16 and 17, where the author is discussing prior works by G. Plotkin). Can you explain why you think these are merely primary sources? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Dratify' - trusting User:Red-tailed hawk that it may be salvageable. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Likely too technical for a general wiki, and to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading the article. It's sourced, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading- <chuckle-chuckle>, I can say the same about half of articles in philosophy (and probably math; didnt try:-) - Altenmann >talk 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  We do not delete articles merely because the sources are hard to understand for someone who lacks prerequisite mathematical knowledge. We would not delete Repatriation tax avoidance merely because a group of editors does not understand the concept of a repatriation taxes, nor Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (the standard foundation of modern math) merely because a group does not understand set theory. If the sources are there, even if the subject might be hard for the average joe to wrap their head around, we don't purge the article merely because we ourselves don't understand the technical sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. We delete based on notability; which is questioned here. But I did agree with your POV, hence my suggestion to draftify the article until someone makes from it somethin acceptable. Are you ready to do this? - Altenmann >talk 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a "general wiki" in the sense that it covers all topics for which we can find sources, not in the sense that every article has to be completely comprehensible to every random drive-by reader. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Straw man argument. In AfD we discuss notability according to our criteria. Readability is not an issue. Let me give you a non-"rocket science" example. There are plenty of drummers which had gigs with numerous bands , but they still do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC despite the fact they can be found in numerous sources.- Altenmann >talk 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As much as I dislike the text, the WP:GNG is clearly fulfilled: article after article filled with formulas and peer-reviewed. A heady mix of functional programming and quantum computing cannot be expected to be easy to understand (and, for avoidance of doubt, IMHO impossible to actually implement, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on the latter). --Викидим (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Retracting. This text appears to be purely category theory-related. Still notable IMHO, but can be explained with proper links and background articles. Draftify. --Викидим (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I do not understand the rationale for draftifying instead of just keeping. Why is a topic being "purely category theory-related" a problem? If the topic is notable, why can't the improvement work happen in article space? XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Please see Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. why can't the improvement work happen in article space? - you tell me. Why nobody cared since 2006? My guess: @dgaf. Recently some admins took a serious issue with poor articles and draftified quite a few of them in my watchlist without bothering with AfD, and guess what? in 50% of cases nobody cared. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Purely category-theory related is not an issue with the subject. Category theory is actually a very basic and therefore relatively easy to explain area of mathematics. Unless quantum computing is involved (and it can be! and I wrongfully thought it is, thus my original remark that things are quite complicated), there is little excuse not to explain things properly here (that is at the level, where a high school student with ability to read diagrams and patience to read the leads of a few adjacent articles, would be able to at least grasp an idea of what a strong monad is). The current article already does link to Monad (category theory), but the latter lacks any plain-language examples, instead deferring to endofunctor that in turn totally lacks any explanation - yet refers to polynomial functor - that in turn completes the tail-loop of links by referring back to endofunctor. It does not have to be like this, some of examples of categories in the Category theory are quite comprehensible, so can be examples of monads (and endofunctors). Викидим (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a good candidate for draftication. For an article that has gone so long without attention, draftification is just a stealth method of slow deletion: wait six months for no more improvement and then delete it as a stale draft. Have the courage of your convictions. If you think it should be deleted, the time is now, not six months from now. If you think it should be cleaned up and kept, then !vote keep so that it can be cleaned up without a looming deadline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have actually started changing the articles in the series to be more readable by the uninitiated. The first one is Category theory itself, where I am slowly adding easy-to-understand examples to the lead. This is a significant piece of work if WP:OR is to be avoided. That said, you have a point (and even if article is changed, there is an enormous backlog for the articles that are not easy to proofread), although it appears to me that the people who can understand the article now do not need read our text, as they must already know the details well. Anyhow, you have convinced me, I am reverting my vote back to Keep. God willing, I will get to this article within few months. Викидим (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record: the result of my editing yesterday could have been predicted (i.e., reverted as "Wikipedia is not a textbook"). I might at some point try to discuss improving the readability on the relevant talk page. My keep vote stands, but now my position WRT this article can be summed up by the famous phrase, "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" (for the avoidance of doubt, I know enough to fully appreciate this joke). Викидим (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is useful for any WP reader looking for an article on Strong monad, who expects to find something. They may want to read the Strong monad page after starting with the category theory page. A person doesn't have to instantly understand the content of a page for a page to be useful. This page is ok as it is and remains useful. At the same time it can also be improved. Rockycape (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The way the article is written is not the way a math article should be written. The first paragraph is especially problematic; it would make almost no sense to someone who know doesn’t monads. Having said that, that’s not the reason for the deletion. If the notability is in question, a merger is a better option here. Again not the reason for the deletion. —- Taku (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I found enough reliably-published sources for which this topic is so central as to be in the title to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. The article is not in great shape but WP:DINC and it's on a technical enough topic that even cleaned up I wouldn't expect it to have a large target audience. Technicality is not a valid reason for deletion; we want to be an encyclopedia of everything not just of pop culture. Here are some sources (seemingly more in computer science / programming language semantics than in pure mathematics):
  • McDermott & Uustalu "What makes a strong monad" (MSFP 2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00851
  • Ratković "Notion of strong monad in computing" (IT 2018), https://doi.org/10.1109/SPIT.2018.8350848
  • Asada "Arrows are strong monads" (SIGPLAN MSFP 2010), https://doi.org/10.1145/1863597.1863607
  • Mulry "Strong monads, algebras and fixed points" (ACCS 1992), https://books.google.com/books?id=7g5WU-D8RkIC&pg=PA202
  • Heckmann "Product operations in strong monads" (TFM 1993), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3503-6
  • Townsend "When are enriched strong monads double exponential monads?" (Simon Stevin 2016), https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-belgian-mathematical-society-simon-stevin/volume-23/issue-2/When-are-enriched-strong-monads-double-exponential-monads/10.36045/bbms/1464710120.full

—David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Needs work, won't be a very popular page even if it gets work, but the available sourcing (see just above) indicates that there's an encyclopedic topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The concept of the strong monad has been around for a half-century. David has given evidence of multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing the concept over the years and the nLab entry lists more sources, so the concept passes notability requirements per WP:GNG. The content is highly technical, but makes sense as far as I can tell. With notability satisfied and an article with improvable content, I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Amar Mehta

Amar Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the figure skating notability guidelines. Competed, but did not medal at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. Astaire (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Skating. Astaire (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this BLP. Let'srun (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NSKATE. PROD was previously removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delaware, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Mike Gregorian

Mike Gregorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best source I could find is [[1]] which only covers the subject for a few sentences. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United States of America, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of United States men's international soccer players as possible search term. GiantSnowman 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  No issues with a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect as above. C679 10:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Winter Haven Christian School

Winter Haven Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced article; no independent sources with in-depth coverage found. Using AfD instead of PROD because PROD has recently been used to unsuccessfully delete this article. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator I understand why the last PROD did not pass (per StAnselm's !vote) and would like to withdraw the deletion nomination.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Florida. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. As a 60-year-old high school, we'd expect some coverage and that's exactly what we find. Just a reminder that the sourcing does not have to be in the article to pass notability. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did not look hard enough. I see why prod was kept and will withdraw afd. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

British Virgin Islands national baseball team

British Virgin Islands national baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find any sources for this team establishing notability under the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, this team isn't even ranked by the WBSC per [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:DICDEF. It's not substantiated that the team does anything remarkable. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I can't verify the team exists; other than "restatements of the title", there is no content. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete One of the many useless articles created in the (incorrect) belief that every single sporting team of every single country and minor territory is inherently notable. Article lacks any actual content. Zero evidence of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Society of Physicists of Macedonia

Society of Physicists of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might". Ldm1954 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping) EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Death of Jay Slater

Death of Jay Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason you've given: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E. There has been a decent amount of news coverage in local weeks but he's now been confirmed as having died via misadventure that's likely to drop off very quickly now and it's not even WP:VICTIM. Fragglet (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Drmies and Fragglet. A classic news aggregator piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I fear that this is shouting in the wind - we have too many articles like this so I'll be very surprised if Delete succeeds. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists but the multiple other articles of this standard lowers the subliminal threshold. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly my point, Wikipedia has too many articles like this. It is beyond absurd of this deletion proposal. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I sincerely hope that is not your point Edl-irishboy: otherwise your point would be "let's throw what's right overboard and just embrace crassness by unthinkingly marching into the new norm of the lowest common denominator simply because there's so much of it already." DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just passing grief porn of no lasting encyclopedic worth. No knowledge to share here, no decent analytical sourcing and Wikipedia is (or should be) WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  wrong wrong wrong 78.145.76.106 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Care to elaborate, Mr. 78? Or Mrs. 78? Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: isn't this article similar to that of Death of Nicola Bulley?... iirc, that was also nominated to be deleted?, but was kept... – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  (🗣️ talk to me  • ✍️ contribs) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • User:L1amw90, there seems to be a lot more content in that article than in this one, particularly content pointing to a greater influence, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    • That article contains a substantial amount of information about the police investigation and subsequent investigations into possible police misconduct during the case. Is there any indication that this situation has broader signficance beyond news coverage of a missing person who had accidentally died? – notwally (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Drmies and Fragglet. What is the encyclopedic importance or enduring notability of this article subject? To document a flash of news coverage surrounding one person's death? Almost all of the article seems like trivial details. We already ignore WP:NOTNEWS too much when it comes to news reports on crimes, and I don't think it is wise to extend that to accidental deaths as well. – notwally (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2024
• Keep and not just because I started the original article, Disappearance of Jay Slater, but because I agree with L1amw90. There are many articles similar to this one which are still on Wikipedia. CitationIsNeeded (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • CitationIsNeeded, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There are many articles like this on Wikipedia such as, Death of Nicola Bulley which was going to be deleted however was kept even though its in the same boat as this article as not having "encyclopedic notability", also why delete the article just because the search is over? If thats the case then that means many other missing persons pages should be deleted aswell due to that reason, and I can agree with you that tabloid journalists have milked the story and most likely in 2 weeks will be posting articles along the lines of "Jay Slater's mother uses gofundme money on booze!", ok i sidetracked a bit TLDR: Keep because there are many other articles similar to this that went thru nomination for deletion but are still up. User:IPhoneRoots 11:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, especially an accidental fatal fall. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• I would lean towards Keep as the coverage of this disappearance, death and the public reaction to it has been extensive to the point where it now feels like its entered the cultural lexicon. If it turns out coverage is not WP:NSUSTAINED then it may be delete-worthy in the future but I expect it will be the type of case that gets referred back to and compared to a lot. Orange sticker (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the article is very similar to the Death of Nicola Bulley. And his death is trending all around social media. Azarctic (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • That other article is substantially about the investigation into police misconduct. Is there anything similar for the article subject here that involves details beyond merely the accidental death of a person? I do not see anything in the article in its current state to suggest that is the case. – notwally (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, the Guardia Civil had to pretend they stopped searching to deter vloggers. Darrelljon (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Yup, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've experienced both stories from a UK media perspective. At the end of the day, it's just a sad case of someone having an accident in the mountains and the difficulties of finding them therein. Rightfully a media story at the time, at least at this time, there's no long lasting impact or public story, or anything extraordinary about it. Negatives outweigh the positives. Delete. RIP Jay. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think one thing is that the story has (unfortunately) moved outside of news coverage and into meme culture and maybe even urban mythology. I'm not inclined to go looking for links though because they're all in pretty bad taste. I doubt this story will go away quickly - multiple stories are still being published in the last 24 hours. As it says in WP:RAPID, we shouldn't rush to create articles but also shouldn't rush to delete them. I would just advise a pause on this one. Orange sticker (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including

• Deaths of Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon
• Yuba County Five
• Death Valley Germans
• Death of Azaria Chamberlain
• Dyatlov Pass incident

Darrelljon (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Are those similar though? All of them seem to be unsolved or were unsolved for a long period of time with sources from different decades, and/or had investigations into the police handling the cases. Does this particular article subject have any remarkable aspect about it as a case other than temporary news coverage? – notwally (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Only Jay Slater made video calls whilst lost and disappeared with smartphone geographic coordinates available from early on. Unlike the others he was not camping/hiking/driving at night. The others were not subject to the social media reaction from the start. Darrelljon (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete All the coverage is sensational. Though we can see some major newspaper contributing to the topic, I can’t see how it fulfils WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, subject fails WP:1E Vorann Gencov (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment this is paywalled, but a new article about the reaction around this case came out this morning. I think the social media section could be expanded. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/07/jay-slater-our-true-crime-poisoned-culture Orange sticker (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Added it to the social media section, thanks for the suggestion. Bonus Person (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep - the incident has had far too extensive media coverage to warrant a deletion Kala7992 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• delete this case is nothing but news, and WP:sensationalism. Feels like gender reversed incident of missing white woman syndrome. Nothing different, or notable about this garden variety missing/death case. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Tentative keep. I'd !vote to delete were it not for the New Statesman article provided by Orange sticker, which indicates use as a WP:CASESTUDY. With that said, the keep rationales of Jattlife121, Darrelljon, CitationIsNeeded, IPhoneRoots, and Azarctic are probably subject to being invalidated, because the existence of articles about other disappearances is not relevant to whether this disappearance is notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, quite similar in notability to Death of Nicola Bulley and a BBC News about the subject was posted today. Sahaib (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, as per Sahaib, it is wholly similar to the case of Nicola Bulley which was nominated for deletion twice for not having encyclopedic notability and a keep was resulted for both. Her death was an accidental drowning and Slater's was an accidental fall - both died in accidental circumstances. The rationale as per her deletion discussion was "An accidental death by drowning is a non event, not worthy of a WP article", but a Keep was resulted nonetheless. Rejecting WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTNEWS as per rationale for this, Jay Slater's case dominated the British media and social media, in particular the spread of the conspiracy theories. Yes, WP is not a newspaper but the constant coverage, not least in Britain but across the world too, perspicuously provides for proof of notability and bestows readers with WP:LASTING impact. ABC, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, TVNZ, RTÉ. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY and this satisfies WP:GNG. Yes countless people go missing every year, but few disappear without trace and generate the media attention to worldwide extent. Most certainly reject that it is a WP:1E case. Though his body has been found and a court rules accidental fall, I wholly reject that this case is "likely to drop off very quickly" with sustained coverage still being reported here, here, here and here a week since his confirmed death. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the cases raised by Darrelljon have had some kind of afterlife, an imprint on the culture. This is not true of this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep , as per all above. This is very similar to the case of Nicola Bulley, who coincidentally were both from the Lancashire area. I’m not sure why Nicola’s article is still up and Jay’s is proposed for deletion but Jay Slater’s case has gained media attention worldwide and is notable to be on Wikipedia in my opinion. There are so many missing person’s articles on here which are similar, so why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1300:259E:2037:382A:EADD:9BD (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a notable story in the UK. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sourcing in light of WP:NEVENT may help to bring about a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I would suggest that this Wikipedia page / article should be retained as it provides a convenient source of all relevant information in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywhosaw (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Yinka Williams (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This user joined Wikipedia on 12 July. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: "Young man falls from cliff" is not notable for our purposes. This doesn't appear to be a criminal event, so NOTNEWS applies here. Sad that he's passed, but this also appears to be a memorial to the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: To be fair, I don't think the Nicola Bulley article is notable now that I look at it, but it's gone to AfD twice, so I won't bother nominating it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep- The disappearance and death of Jay slater was and currently is a large story with significant publicity and might I point out the number of similar articles eg: Death of Nicola Bulley Anonymous569 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep It's in the public interest to keep this wiki up.

It's not a secret, it's been all over the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.37.42 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the convincing case made by Edl-irishboy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve already had my vote but I just have to echo the votes after mine of GiantSnowman and Black Kite. The sheer amount of coverage of this received in pretty much every single UK media source should nearly guarantee it as notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - yes NOTNEWS applies, but this was more than this in the UK. It was everywhere for a number of days. GiantSnowman 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Normally I'd suggest deleting most of these NOTNEWS types of articles, but this was so ludicrously widely covered both in RS and on social media because of the multiple unusual circumstances surrounding the case. If you were in the UK you couldn't escape it for a month. Yes, we have lots of crappy "Death of ..." articles but this one is more notable than the vast majority of those. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS and NEVENT. Keep in mind we are to summarize the news for the long term view and document to a day by day level. The coverage of this death pointed out by others above once the cause was known are routine aspects related to this type of story, and since neither the person normal actual death had any significant notability or long term impacts, it clearly fails our guidelines to keep. This is a strong case that that want to write on such news topics like this to start at Wikinews, and then if the story turns notable in the long term (not just primary sourcing as here) then it could be moved to en.wiki. Most of the keep arguments avoid are not starters per ATA. Masem (t) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Routine accidental death of a non-notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: There are numerous articles on WP covering the accidental death of a non-notable person. Specifically, the Death of Nicola Bulley story. She was a non-notable person who had an accidental death - and her case is only being reported recently again due to the Jay Slater story as has been reported widely. Though she has gone through AfD twice, the article remains. It is absurd to propose deleting this article while allowing a plethora of similar articles to exist. It is inconsistent and undermines neutrality. Said articles out there include:
• The Death of Esther Dingley article is believed to be an accidental fall as is Jay Slater's, and it hasn't gone to AfD.
• Disappearance of Cynthia Bah-Traore who's page is just a simple missing person's case, with no widespread global attention, and her article remains. It's also an example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION,
• Death of Haider who also suffered an accidental fall with no widespread media attention or further information, another example of NOTNEWS.
• and Death of Lauren Cho. Further researching can show further similar articles. To single out the Jay Slater article for deletion is an erratic action in my opinion. Thank you. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Multi-AFDs do not have a lot of support unless the articles are extremely similar to each other, often created and only edited by the same editor. While these all fit the same theme of "disappearance and unfortunately accidental death of a non-notable person" the circustances around the stories as well as how they were created are are to dissimilar to run them all at the same time. — Masem (t) 00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Just a general comment: WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are pretty much never effective ways to try to argue that a particular article should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • It is essential to recognise Wikipedia's purpose 'to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge'. This adheres to Wiki's guidelines by providing the primary criterion for inclusion of verifiability and notability which have been met. The overarching theme of 'notable accidental deaths and disappearances' provides a cohesive context for inclusion. While WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid reasons for retention, they highlight wiki's essential aspect of consistency. If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. This article meets the same criteria that justified the inclusion of similar cases as I have provided already. Edl-irishboy (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I agree with your If numerous articles on similar topics exist and are maintained on here, it sets a precedent for what the community considers notable. statement about other articles exising estblishing some kind of precedent that this article should also exist. There over six million Wikipedia articles and more keep being added everything. So, the fact that something exists, even if it has existed for a WP:LONGTIME, doesn't necessarily mean it should exist. I'm not saying those other articles need to be deleted; only that it's better to focus on why this article should be kept instead of trying to establish some kind of WP:SYN-ish/WP:OR-ish type (in my opinion) of correspondance between it and other articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
        • As have emphasised many times by myself and others, there has been significant media attention and demonstrated interest in the Wiki community to Jay's disappearance and subsequent death, indicating its impact and public interest. The coverage by major news outlets highlights its relevance and importance. His case, given its circumstances and the attention it received, is a part of contemporary history in which Wiki serves as a repository of. I reiterate while the existence of other articles doesn't automatically justify retention, it is worth noting that similar cases have been documented here, indicating a community consensus on the notability of such events. Furthermore, his case provides educational value by offering the effects of social media that it had impacted on this case, as was the case of Nicola Bulley. The article can be expanded to include further details, the broader social implications of his death, responses from various community leaders and any subsequent changes in policies or public awareness campaigns. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
          • "indicating its impact and public interest"... in the short term. There's nothing to indicate long term notability per NEVENT, nor the GNG (It's why we avoid articles on short term bursts of news coverage). Perhaps this also applies to the other articles given but those should be considered case by case.
            The other way to view this is if you were just starting to look at these events, but ten years from now without the awareness of being in the midst of the media coverage. Based on what we know, it's unlikely that it would make sense to write such an article that has no lasting impact. That's where we need editors to keep NOTNEWS in mind — Masem (t) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
            • 'There's nothing to indicate long term notability'..notability can sometimes emerge over time. Many historical events initially appeared to have fleeting impact but gained importance as societal context evolved. Future developments and new perspectives could bring a greater understanding of its impact. We shouldn't consider how events are viewed 'ten years from now' without current media awareness. The article represents a snapshot of public interest and societal issues of social media for example relevant today. This flawed perspective is precisely why preserving such articles is important, acknowledging that significance can develop over time, it helps maintain a comprehensive historical record. Historical examples such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand demonstrate how events initially perceived as minor can later gain immense significance. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
              • It's more the reverse, the current flawed perspective is this need to rush to create articles on events that have a short term surge of coverage without waiting for the long term impact to reveal itself. That's why we have had to write NEVENT to try to get editors to get back to writing encyclopic articles aligned with NOTNEWS and not simply regurgitating every detail revealed by the news to give excessive weight on first party sourcing. This latter approach is far better at Wikinews, and if the event does show itself notable, then we can bring it back into en.wiki. — Masem (t) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
                • Jay Slater’s passing is not merely a transient news event. The community's response reflect lasting importance. Delaying the article's inclusion under the assumption that it can be resurrected later risks losing valuable context and immediate responses. It is not the reverse of good practice to maintain the article on here at this time. Suggesting that the article should be deferred to Wikinews for immediate coverage before being evaluated later fails to recognise that wiki is precisely the right platform for documenting significant events. This fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia's purpose. His death has had a considerable impact which is reflected in the coverage. It is not a matter of reversing proper procedure but about ensuring that significant events are documented comprehensively and timely on here. The notion that his article should be removed and only considered if it proves its notability over time does a disservice to wiki's role in preserving and reflecting on significant life events as they happen. The immediate reactions, governmental and professional acknowledgments such as here and here, as well as personal tributes are part of a larger narrative that wiki is well-positioned to document. Slater's article, supported by diverse sources, reflects the criteria for notability and the purpose of wiki to capture and document such events in real time. I am surprised only Jay Slater's article is being proposed for deletion and not others I have mentioned. Concluding, removing the article based on the premise that it might not be notable enough for wiki later undermines the value of preserving immediate and contextual information. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

              I'm sorry, but comparing the death of Jay Slater to the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is completely absurd. There are many similar solved missing persons cases that have become the subject of news coverage, and they inevitably see a spike of coverage at the time before fading into obscurity. The ones that tend to see enduring coverage are ones where the body is unfound or the reason for their death remains mysterious, neither of which is true in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge the parts about social media to social media or some other article that talks about the effects of social media on society. This is the analytical and encyclopedic part of the article. The tragic death itself isn't encyclopedic and could be summed up in just a few sentences for background. As many people have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and we shouldn't create articles as a memorial. We really do have to start following policy on this issue, or else Wikipedia is going to fill up tabloid stories as news sites get more desperate for clicks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's a good point. To the extent there is any encyclopedic value (as opposed to news interest) in this article it's part of a broader theme on social media and society. That's best handled by incorporation into an article such as social media. As a standalone that doesn't work. DeCausa (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just going to add that if the article ends up being merged or redirected, then the non-free use of the main infobox image would need to be re assessed because the justification for non-free use would no longer be primary identification of the subject in main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NOTNEWS with much of the coverage being sensationalist and not indicative of the topic being likely to meet WP:LASTING. JavaHurricane 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • While wiki is not a newspaper, it does not mean that content on here is divorced from the standards of significant and sustained coverage. His death, while perhaps not an ongoing headline, has had a significant impact in its own right. The circumstances surrounding the death contributed to broader discussions on important issues such as social media and the conspiracy theories as with the case of Nicola Bulley. The long-term relevance of Jay's case cannot be discounted. Issues related to his death may evolve and become more significant over time. The claim that the coverage of his case is sensationalist does not align with the credibility of the sources reporting on the case. Major news outlets such as the BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, and The New York Times have provided day to day coverage. These are well-respected organisations known for their journalistic standards and rigorous reporting. Furthermore, I know shouldnt discuss other similar articles, but the case of Nicola Bulley, sensationalist tabloid newspaper articles have been sourced, and no one has said a word? <> <> Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Sustained coverage is usually measured far beyond one month, given we write for a long term view. — Masem (t) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

      Notability does not rely solely on the duration of coverage but rather on the depth and significance of the coverage too. The value of documenting an event is not merely about waiting for a lengthy period of coverage. The emphasis should be on the quality of the coverage rather than its duration. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

      No, we specifically say that a burst of coverage is not an indicator of notability. See WP:NSUSTAINED, and the essence of WP:NEVENT. We're not a newspaper and just because an event may get a large amount of news covers from quality sources still doesn't make the topic necessarily appropriate for a stand alone article if all that coverage is only in the short term. Masem (t) 01:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

      From the WP:NSUSTAINED you have noted, it states 'a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it".' The case of Jay Slater has indeed garnered significant attention beyond the immediate burst of news coverage. The coverage from notable, reliable sources indicates a sustained interest and recognition of the article's significance on a wider scale. It has received attention not just within the United Kingdom but also internationally. The coverage of Jay Slater's death is not merely superficial but has involved detailed reporting, analysis, and commentary. While Wiki is not a newspaper which I've said countless times in my arguments, the case of Jay Slater went beyond the criteria of ephemeral media attention. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough why on earth this article would be proposed for deletion when there are multiple articles about accidental deaths that have been retained with no trouble; this proposal clearly goes against Wikipedia's policies and purpose and wholly undermines neutrality on here. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to the dedicated editors who have invested their time and effort in creating and refining these articles in good faith. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing but primary sources can exist; this happened just a month ago, so everything that has been written about the incident is in the context of the event. Wait until we have secondary sources — books, academic journals, retrospective journalism, etc., that look at the sources from the time of the event — rather than relying on primary sources, those written around the time of the event. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is nonsensical. Secondary sources can "involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". There are clear secondary sources in this article, as evidenced by the analysis and opinion pieces references provided, as seen here, here and here. The article contains a mixture of primary and secondary sources alike, so it is wholly absurd to comment about the non-existence of secondary sources in the article. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Edl-irishboy, at a certain point, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. – notwally (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely enormous coverage in the UK media moves this well above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Truly laughable nomination. No more NOTNEWS than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Actually had a hell of a lot more coverage in the UK media than that minor incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is a laughable nomination to be honest. The significant coverage, not least in the UK, but globally, clearly goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. RIP Jay. Edl-irishboy (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I have reviewed the above discussion and checked several sources. Yes, the subject garnered a huge amount of media and news coverage, and yes - other stuff may exist. However my !vote to keep is based upon the steady emergence of WP:RS articles which are more secondary in nature - commenting and analyzing on not just the incident but also the surrounding events such as the sleuthing and trolling and nature of "high-profile missing person's cases". Examples of which, and some have been linked previously, include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. As such, in my view, I consider to presume that GNG is met. ResonantDis_tortion 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment A new article 1 suggests interest will drop off, at least in terms of tabloid news. However in doing so, is a secondary source analysing and comparing the case with the Disappearance of Damien Nettles and Jack O'Sullivan (from this year) and the article itself generates more sustained coverage instead of it's claim otherwise. Darrelljon (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This falls squarely within the "brief bursts of news coverage" noted at SUSTAINED. NEVENT considers "accidents" and "deaths" to be routine by default and thus even when they are widely reported at the time [they] are usually not notable. There is no indication that this will have the requisite additional enduring significance to overcome this guidance. Furthermore, Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. All we have right now is primary, contemporaneous reporting, which is against both our NOTNEWS and PRIMARY policies. And the existence of shitty memes (or whatever) made by shitty internet people definitely does not factor into whether the topic is of permanent, encyclopedic historical significance. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete textbook NOTNEWS; these sorts of accidents are specifically called out as an example of normally routine coverage. Sensational coverage during a search doesn't equal enduring importance. Coverage brought up above that takes a wider analytical view doesn't suggest the need of a standalone page. We're not a crystal ball; if this proves some atypical level of enduring discussion, recreate the article then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Significant and sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources for a period of weeks. Over 75 references are currently in the article from a range of sources. Perhaps for one or two editors (I do assume good faith) there might be a touch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To dismiss the article as "sensationalism" seems to be a point of view which doesn't entirely correspond with the wide variety of reliable sources such as BBC News, Sky News and broadsheet newspapers such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times of India. Unless the BBC and broadsheet newspapers are also guilty of sensationalism? Perhaps they are sometimes. But in my view the article meets the requirements of notablity. Over the last 12 days the number of daily page views for the article has ranged from 920 to 8,794. On average, a few thousand daily. If there are some people who don't like the topic or think it's sensationalism then nobody is forcing them to read the article. But thousands of Wikipedia readers are sufficiently interested enough to click on the article and in my view it meets WP:GNG. I agree with Edl-irishboy that the sustained coverage goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, all news outlets are guilty of sensationalism, which is why news articles are near the bottom in terms of reliability when it comes to the wide range of potential sources available. I doubt there will ever be any scholarly articles about this case. – notwally (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The media coverage for the search clearly goes above and beyond the normal media coverage. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS and unlikely to have any real sustained coverage. Out of scope for the project. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Tabloid sensationalism. Polyamorph (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're of course fully entitled to express your view, but currently there are 79 references in the article and the vast majority of the references are reliable secondary sources from broadsheet newspapers and national news outlets such as BBC News rather than from tabloids. The article has suffered from some vandalism and disruptive editing. Page protection was provided for the article earlier this month and if there is continued vandalism and disruptive editing then further page protection may be required. There has been sustained news coverage in reliable sources for over a month which in my view goes above the WP:NOTNEWS standard. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The BBC and British broadsheet newspapers, all of which featured massive and sustained coverage, do not generally indulge in "tabloid sensationalism". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      The BBC engages in far more tabloid sensationalism than it should, especially on the website. Agree with the comment below by Masem re: MWWS. Polyamorph (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      However, this also feels like a type of Missing white woman syndrome, which media of all types including normally high quality sources can get caught up in. How many people go missing every day? Why did this single case get the focus? Masem (t) 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      I'm guessing because it's unusual for people from western countries to go missing while on holiday abroad, because a lot of British people go on holiday to the Canaries so it's "close to home", and because it took so long to find his body. Missing white woman syndrome: The syndrome also encompasses disproportionate media attention to females who are young, attractive, white, and upper middle class. Well, he was indeed young and white, but none of the others are relevant, so I think this is being misapplied! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      Aa I said, a "type of", not explicitly MWWS for obvious reasons in this case. Something in the story drew the attention of British media to this story in contrast to any other missing persons story, and we should be wary of feeding this type of media bias Masem (t) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) In Europe, 250,000 children go missing every year. Maybe the Missing White woman syndrome isn't exactly the analogy - but there's a related principle. DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Logical Position

Logical Position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Trash article about non-notable company Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Allegedly related to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_133#ROTH_Capital_Partners. AfD may not be cleanup, but if I clean this article up nothing will be left. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Internet, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment most of the references are press-releases and unimportant awards ("top 100 places-to-work in the Portland area in 2016"). But [8], while not enough on its own, suggests there might be coverage. I agree with the nom that it is unclear whether any prose would be left in the article after cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that Charlotte Observer story is coverage of a new location opening that would be excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Question What or where is the "allegation" re: a relation to Roth? -- GreenC 03:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: The person who started the article was alleged to be related to the topic of that conversation. But, looking into it, I doubt it; so I struck it. They are "acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas" but I am not so sure they are related to that group of accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. All of the coverage is excluded for notability under WP:ORGTRIV. No evidence this company passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia shouldn't do things with the explicit goal of influencing public opinion in certain ways. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.

In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record. TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [9]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Cullen328. There seems to be a lot of non-policy based arguments for deletion of articles based on their current state, regardless of their notability, which is really the only concern here. "Keep" arguments like the user is biased are exactly as meaningful as "delete" arguments like a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates: zero impact. Full length stories on this assassination plot are currently found at all tier 1 news sources including The New York Times, AP AP, Reuters, CNN, and a "live updates" sub-site at NBC News. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Expand or merge per MVBW. It sounds like this is already mentioned in the background section of the Qasam article, so it could also just be Deleted. However, there is not enough prose to support a full article at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unless there ends up being significantly more information released on this plot. Estreyeria (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Not enough content to support an article yet. The details are fairly vague at this point, even with the above sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per CNC. Her Pegship (?) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.

In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.

If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.

That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani#Attempted retaliation by Iran. I took the liberty to merge the contents of the article in question into the target article. The Mountain of Eden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is No Consensus right now (Redirect, Merge, Keep, Delete AND Draftify options proposed). But I'm also not sure how much this article resembles the version that was nominated as already one participant has stated that they have merged content to another article prior to a AFD closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. There is nothing of substance in the news coverage. --Викидим (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Barauni–Lucknow Express

Barauni–Lucknow Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep all listed today Bolierplate statement on each nom that comes down to 'my PROD was rejected, so this is the next step'. Please explain on each of these noms a broader statement as to why you're seeking deletion than the same rationale across all of them. They're also too numerous to ever come to a consensus on all of them, and at worst they will all be redirected to an omnibus article, not deleted. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Because these are basically the same article, just about different non-notable subjects. There are hundreds of such articles created by a small bunch of users that all follow a similar pattern and that is why the same rationale works for each of them. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment. The articles about the trains from this list that I have checked appear to be mechanically generated from entries in some database. Their content is mostly identical and each article does not appear to warrant its own discussion. Essentially, we have here a timetable of Indian railroads in a representation that is very inconvenient to use. Indeed these articles can be combined into one table that pretty much will be a copy of the original database. Since a timetable for the Indian railroads must already exist somewhere, a better solution might be to redirect them to a single article about the timetable itself with no details about particular trains, for the latter the article in turn will contain a link to the original, always up-to-date, searchable database. The schedule of regular trains updates many times a year, so we really should not get ourselves sucked into maintenance of these articles. Викидим (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  The timetable: [10]. This website is used in the references of nearly all Indian Railway service-related articles, whether notable or non-notable. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment It would have been more productive if @Arnav Bhate had bundled these nominations as I don't expect editors to be able to reply responsibly to every single one. That said, I do think the nomination statement is appropriate; it makes an assertion about lack of notability and offers a rationale. If the rationales are identical, that's an issue for discussion but not a reason to issue a blanket "keep." Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  That said, I do think the nominator should re-do these nominations as a bundle to facilitate participation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I had previously done a bundle of nominations, where users commented that they didn't like large bundles for article evaluation purposes. When there are such a large number of articles, one way or the other, there will be a problem. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG. It may fall under WP:ROTM. We can instead redirect to a broader article that covers train services in India. Such an article will arrange the details in a more helpful and easy to maintain format. It will also retain the essential info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all articles about trains that are not special in any way. Per my comment above, Wikipedia is not a place to keep a non-searchable, non-official, never-up-to-date, and bloated with repeated text copy of a railway schedule database that already exists elsewhere and does not have these drawbacks (cf. WP:NOTDATABASE). --Викидим (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment it is a train-line. Coverage such as [11] proves it exists, but doesn't demonstrate notability. Is East Central Railway zone a reasonable merge target? Walsh90210 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  These articles are about individual trains running the line, AFAIK. They can be merged together (or to some other article), creating a timetable. We do not create articles for each star in the sky, although very detailed databases exist that, just like timetables, can be used to mechanically generate some text for each line in the database. Unlike the sky, the railway timetable keeps constantly changing, creating a maintenance nightmare on top of these WP:ROTM concerns. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is not a train line, but a train service. The zone article could have a section about operated services, which could contain a list, so in that way it seems reasonable, though I am not in favour of it. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• comment. I can't let this pass without making a comment. This article is only one of so many articles that a fellow editor has listed en-mass that will likely be deleted. So little effort required to have so much effort deleted and then it's gone from wikipedia. As a wikipedia reader I've looked up trains in India when I've "armchair travelled" after seeing the movie Lion_(2016_film) and this kind of information in wikipedia makes my wikipedia experience better. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the page creators and contributors. Speaking for myself, your efforts are appreciated.Rockycape (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all Indian train articles. WP:GNG, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTIMETABLE all apply here. Zero evidence that these services are independently notable. Astaire (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Barauni–Gondia Express

Barauni–Gondia Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This article does not meet WP:GNG and may fall under WP:ROTM. We can redirect it to a broader article that covers train services in India. This action could greatly improve the quality of the information and make it easier to maintain, while keeping the basic info in these many entries.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bapudham Superfast Express

Bapudham Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Banka–Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express

Banka–Rajendra Nagar Terminal Intercity Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bangriposi–Bhubaneswar Superfast Express

Bangriposi–Bhubaneswar Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bangarapet–Bangalore City Express

Bangarapet–Bangalore City Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bangalore City–Nagercoil Express

Bangalore City–Nagercoil Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

KSR Bengaluru–Kannur Express

KSR Bengaluru–Kannur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Udaipur Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Udaipur Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Ramnagar Express

Bandra Terminus–Ramnagar Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Palitana Express

Bandra Terminus–Palitana Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Muzaffarpur Avadh Express

Bandra Terminus–Muzaffarpur Avadh Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Express

Bandra Terminus–Mahuva Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Saurashtra Janta Express

Bandra Terminus–Veraval Saurashtra Janta Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Jaisalmer Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Jaisalmer Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Hisar Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Hisar Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Haridwar Express

Bandra Terminus–Haridwar Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Barauni Avadh Express

Bandra Terminus–Barauni Avadh Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Gandhidham Weekly Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Gandhidham Weekly Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Delhi Sarai Rohilla Express

Bandra Terminus–Delhi Sarai Rohilla Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Bikaner Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Bikaner Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Abhijeet Kumar Jatav

Abhijeet Kumar Jatav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Lost Lok Sabha seat and being a mayor of Bharatpur Municipal Corporation doesn’t automatically confer notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: this was also duplicated as a separate article after being previously moved to draft for having no sources. Procyon117 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Bhuj AC Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Patna Weekly Express

Bandra Terminus–Patna Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Jaipur Weekly Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Jaipur Weekly Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bandra Terminus–Bhavnagar Terminus Weekly Superfast Express

Bandra Terminus–Bhavnagar Terminus Weekly Superfast Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Asansol–Gorakhpur Express

Asansol–Gorakhpur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Asansol–Gonda Express

Asansol–Gonda Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Arakkonam–Jolarpettai Express

Arakkonam–Jolarpettai Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Christopher McGimpsey

Christopher McGimpsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Being a councillor does not automatically confer notability, and criteria for GNG isn’t satisfied either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Northern Ireland, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Serving as a local councillor doesn't automatically establish notability, and I'm not seeing enough news coverage otherwise. The only in-depth coverage seems to be the news articles about the 2019 local elections, but that's not enough. Maybe the 2019 Belfast local elections deserve their own page, but McGimpsey does not. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Amritsar–Nangal Dam Express

Amritsar–Nangal Dam Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ambala–Amb Andaura DEMU

Ambala–Amb Andaura DEMU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Subedarganj–Dehradun Express

Subedarganj–Dehradun Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alappuzha–Kannur Express

Alappuzha–Kannur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ajmer–Hyderabad Express

Ajmer–Hyderabad Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame, thus it is just WP:ROTM. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Varanasi Weekly Express

Ahmedabad–Varanasi Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This article fails WP:GNG. The train service does not have historical significance and may not be notable since it lacks coverage in independent sources, raising concerns about being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should keep the articles only if they are helpful and have several reliable sources, which is not the case here. The article might fit better in a rail or transport database.--AstridMitch (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Sultanpur Weekly Express

Ahmedabad–Sultanpur Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Express

Ahmedabad–Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Katra Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Patna Weekly Express

Ahmedabad–Patna Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Lucknow Weekly Express

Ahmedabad–Lucknow Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Gorakhpur Express

Ahmedabad–Gorakhpur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Tri-Weekly Express

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Tri-Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Existence at the date of the timetable has been proven. Notability is not proven. WP:BEFORE suggests this is a WP:ROTM service. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge this and all the other articles prodded and deprodded at the same time to an article or list, per the deprodding summary. There is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE the encyclopaedic content just because the article is not independently notable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Weekly Express

Agra Fort–Ramnagar Weekly Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agartala–Garjee Passenger

Agartala–Garjee Passenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is not a named service, nor is it any special unnamed service that has some claim to fame. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agartala–Silchar Express

Agartala–Silchar Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar ·