Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:44, 7 April 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 06	April 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani

AfDs for this article:

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

Since there is no prejudice against speedy renomination due to relatively low participation in the last AfD discussion, I am renominating this page for deletion again because the entire image of Karan Adani is promotional and his current page is nothing but a resume. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and as a wealthy heir to the Adani Group. Within the Indian media sphere, the majority of coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the concerns about the previous two AfDs.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect: Clearly promotional. Can be redirected to the father's article, if needed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanique Palmer

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

Fails WP:BIO. The best of the otherwise useless current set of references is an article about her regaining her figure after her pregnancy, hardly the stuff needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The best I could find is this article/video. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are mostly fluff pieces and don't appear to meet notability requirements. Perhaps an article can be written about this subject when she meets them.

UptonSincere (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO. Having a fit physique after children isn't quite the stuff of notability here, I don't see anything about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BEFORE is giving me more of "a medical profession" or a "consultant". Welp, bearing it's has no source and didn't meet GNG, SIGCOV, ANYBIO. Deletion is not far an option! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moesa Pancho

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

The tempo articles are advertisements, and the rest seem to be largely copies of that advertisement. Hence, seems to fail WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [1]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [2] [3]. And there also other notable sources from CNN and a book that was cited in the article [4] [5] 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Unanimous. JBW (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Lucknow

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion as part of a bundle nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Bangalore, which closed as keep on 24 February 2018. I quote a relevant interaction between @RoySmith and Narky Blert:

Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.

I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The source in question (now a dead URL) was removed by GermanJoe in October 2018 with the edit summary: rmv - not a reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "List of songs about [X city]" articles should be evaluated on their own merits, and some such articles definitely have a claim to notability, for cities that have been the subject of several notable songs or songs by notable artists, and whose songs have been discussed as a set in independent, reliable sources. Like the nominator, I find that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Any notable songs can be discussed in a "In popular culture" section or similar at Lucknow. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting. I can't tell if IgnatiusofLondon is offering an opinion here (please BOLD) or just catching us up on the history here but since the article was part of a previous bundled nomination, it's not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is a comment, one is a !vote :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IgnatiusofLondon. I misread your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IgnatiusofLondon Mach61 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt

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

Fails WP:GNG. The principality of Bentheim and Steinfurt was mediatized in 1806. His and his son's war service is not notable enough for an article. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A head of a defunct house is still notable. This was on the "Did you know" part on the main page. And he studied at Corps Borussia Bonn and became a captain which approves notability for WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link where those are GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: There is no link from any 'Did you know' archive to this article, nor any notice on the talk page that the article was once on 'Did you know'. The article had existed for less than 24 hours prior to nomination for deletion. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant IRS coverage. Article is cobbled together from passing mentions and primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments.

98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Azarctic. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide accurate, policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article rather than "per" arguments. This is not a vote count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding my vote, I meant it in the sense that I agreed with what people like DrKay and JoelleJay said about the article failing WP:GNG and not having secondary sources.98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "prince" of a defunct, non-sovereign county is not automatically notable. I don't see significant coverage, and although I am fairly lax in my own standards, he does not pass the grade even in my book. For the record, being a captain does not pass WP:MIL. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

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

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Halo (franchise)#Plot. This section of this article already looks lengthy but if this is the target article/section, you prefer, so be it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Halo

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe this is notable as a group. It is largely Halo's gameplay not its universe; so merging it to Halo (franchise) seems to be more appropriate. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. The article fails to make a good argument for how the factions have been discussed as a group. The Covenant and Flood are notable, but they already have their own articles. The rest can be summarized on the series page fairly easily if the extraneous material is removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Polygon spends the better first half of this article discussing the factions [6], and there's [7] and [8] if you like Valnet, but there's less out there than I would have guessed. The thing stopping me from !voting merge is that the suggested target article is already 6,600 words, and merging even a portion of this 4,300 word article is well into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge to List of Halo characters could work? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is substantially worse, at 13,000 words. Definitely not. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is large but a lot of the development section may be redundant. It's not even specifically about the factions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with a merge to various targets after going through the sections:
Development: Merge to Halo: Combat Evolved#Design, and a new Halo 2#Design subsection. as it's mostly sourced to design commentary from those two games.

Factions: Merge to Halo (franchise). The Forerunner section and Insurrectionists sections are particularly poorly sourced, so trim those heavily.

Cultural impact: This section is underdeveloped and redundant to elsewhere, don't merge.
~ A412 ^talk! 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Neutral on the target. There are already articles on the only two notable factions, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for the factions outside of that. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Merge but disagreement on what the target article(s) should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article does have notable sources, but does not seem to require an article. A merge should be apt. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MKsLifeInANutshell, did you even read my relisting comment? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 editors already agreed to merge into Halo (franchise). Greenish Pickle! 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other options mentioned as well. Please sign your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Admin wants to make sure which target you guys prefer? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me the main target should be Halo (franchise)#Plot, though as detailed by A412, it can have different targets depending on the content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm is right. The redirect target can be the main series article. And some of it can be summarized at other articles if needed. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Article says that the film was released in 2023, no date for an upcoming release so it might never be released. If it ever is released, this closure decision can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaamana

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

Setting aside the sock and likely UPE on this page, I do not see reliable sources verifying this was even released. There are some minor sources and one I found that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing else. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify till release. DareshMohan (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article says it was going to be released in Sept 2023, so I assuming it has already happened. I am also not seeing much coverage on it, except on Times of India.Hkkingg (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: till release. Can be expanded after the release. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes there are Google hits, but no sources with SIGCOV denoting any notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Life Sciences

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS that aren't primary sources or press releases. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United States of America. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as first preference, otherwise merge into another article - absolutely this article desperately needs work (hence the topic on the talk page), but a pretty quick search shows me that there is reasonable degree of notability. A 5-second search shows me that Oracle Argus, just one of Life Sciences' products, has been highlighted in recent journal articles about the role of digital solutions in pharmacovigilance and medication safety for example ([9]). Also, just to note that WP:NSOFT is a user essay that failed promotion to a guideline, and looks specifically at articles about individual software rather than articles about the companies that make those platforms. Tim (Talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After more thought, I believe that the Oracle Life Sciences article can be deleted, with Oracle Argus made into either its own article or added to the very closely related Oracle Health page with an appropriate redirect from Oracle Argus. Tim (Talk) 05:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwali

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GEOLAND. TheTankman (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get policy-based opinions with more elaboration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn WP:TROUT moment. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth (novel)

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

I can only find one review of this book (the Publisher's Weekly) and I'm not even sure that one provides the requisite WP:DEPTH for this book to pass WP:NBOOK. I tried to find other reviews online, but was unable to find almost anything on this book (granted, there are a lot of books called "Mammoth" so I may have missed one). Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Besides the Publisher's Weekly review, which definitely counts, there's also a review at Kirkus Reviews, as well as reviews in The Lima News and The Daily Oklahoman. I'm sure that there are others. Toughpigs (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to South African wireless community networks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South African wireless community networks: Per ATD. Can be expanded in future if needed from the history preserved under redirect. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daraja Press

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

No independent sources about the publisher. Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article now meets the standards required to not be deleted. Grantennis (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article now? Please advise if more sources are needed. Grantennis (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three independent sources about the publisher: AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com.

Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/.

Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64q7S7IB-A.

Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22Daraja+Press%22

Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search?query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check now Grantennis (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to convert the article into "List of books published by Daraja Press", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria. The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded. What benefit to you think having a separate article has? IgelRM (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this IgelRM. This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world. At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives. Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia? Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the "sources" are going to be quite different. Do you see where I'm coming from? Eager to know your thoughts. Grantennis (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important. IgelRM (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question - "What benefit to you think having a separate article has?". The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented. Would it be helpful to add sources to that point? Like:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes . These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves. They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes. Grantennis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources. A "List of books published by Daraja Press" might be better as a category. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of sources now Grantennis (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. I see only one source that might come close to meeting NORG requirements, [10]. Not enough. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many high quality sources on the article. It's not clear what your referring to. This is normal news-coverage for a publisher. Grantennis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grantennis, high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions. It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites. Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage? Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article currently presents 33 sources, some of which are academic, such as Google Scholar. The user @Grantennis seems committed to updating and maintaining the article in accordance with the project guidelines, I believe that the deletion in this case would not be applicable. Svartner (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources. Only one of them even comes close to the requirements of WP:NORG. The "Google Scholar" source is a search results page, and doesn't help the notability case (WP:GHITS). Some of the books published by the press may meet WP:NBOOK, but that doesn't make the press notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source assessment. Sources beyond these are all for individual publications of the press, so as I've said they don't matter for notability purposes. Jfire (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023)	"With permission from Daraja Press"			✘ No
Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022)			Founder is quoted	✘ No
Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021)	~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member			~ Partial
CL (October 28, 2020)				✘ No
Repeat of #1				? Unknown
AELAQ	Subject-provided copy			✘ No
Fallon, Helen (2019)			Mention	✘ No
Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018)			Mention	✘ No
Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020)		WP:COUNTERPUNCH	Mention	✘ No
Amazon.com				✘ No
Google Scholar				✘ No
RPA (5 September 2020)			Member in list	✘ No
AELAQ (14 February 2012)			Member in list	✘ No
RBC			Member in list	✘ No
LPG			Member in list	✘ No
MRO	Self-published			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete as per the source analysis, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the source table above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building

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

Just a building damaged in a recent earthquake. Nobody died or even was hurt (or at least our article does not say so). I doubt this has stand-alone notability, coverage seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I recommend merging and redirecting to 2024 Hualien earthquake. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Taiwan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just leave it till the media coverage of the earthquake dies down and focuses on the next earthquake. Brudelman (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Articles published after the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
  1. "Ceremony held to bid farewell to Uranus building, tilting symbol of Taiwan earthquake". The Straits Times. Agence France-Presse. 2024-04-05. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
    The article notes: "Fruit, flowers and incense paper were laid on a table on April 5 as the authorities prepared a ceremony before demolishing a precariously tilting building that has become a symbol of Taiwan’s biggest quake in 25 years. The glass-fronted Uranus building, located in Hualien, the city nearest to the quake’s epicentre, is a 10-storey mix of shops and apartments that has stood for nearly 40 years. The 7.4-magnitude earthquake on April 3 caused it to tilt at a 45-degree angle, its twisted exterior quickly becoming one of the most recognisable images to emerge from the disaster."
  2. Wang, Yanhua 王燕華 (2024-04-04). "花蓮大地震／天王星大樓 6年前震損修繕" [Hualien Earthquake/Uranus Building repaired after earthquake damage 6 years ago]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
    The article notes: "花蓮市天王星大樓在二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震時，因受損被列黃單，經修繕已經解除，不料仍被昨天的強震震倒。"
    From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building in Hualien City was placed on the yellow list due to damage during the Hualien 0206 earthquake in 2018. After repairs were lifted, it was unexpectedly still knocked down by yesterday's strong earthquake."
    The article notes: "位於花蓮市軒轅路的天王星大樓，鄰近東大門夜市，一九八六年取得使用執照，九層樓共有七十九戶居住，以套房為主，去年底最新的實價登錄約兩百萬元出頭；二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震發生時，天王星大樓曾因牆壁、地磚被震損，經結構技師勘查後貼上黃單，後來經過修繕，恢復原狀使用，因此解除。"
    From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building is located on Xuanyuan Road in Hualien City, adjacent to the Dongdamen Night Market. It obtained a usage license in 1986. There are 79 households living on the nine floors, mainly suites. The latest real price at the end of last year was about $2 million. When the Hualien 0206 earthquake occurred in 2018, the Uranus Building was damaged due to the earthquake's walls and floor tiles. After inspection by structural technicians, it was affixed with a yellow slip. It was later repaired and restored to its original condition, so it was released."
  3. Yang, Peiqi 楊佩琪 (2024-04-07). "花蓮天王星大樓「內部現況」曝光　由內往外60度斜角視野驚悚" [The "internal condition" of the Uranus Building in Hualien is exposed. The 60-degree oblique view from the inside to the outside is shocking.] (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
    The article notes: "7.2花蓮強震發生至今進入第5天，搜救人員持續在花蓮市的天王星大樓等倒塌現場及太魯閣等地進行搜救。有天王星大樓住戶回想自己就是因為經歷921大地震，才從1樓搬到9樓，認為住到較高樓比較有生存空間。"
    From Google Translate: "It is the fifth day since the 7.2 Hualien earthquake. Search and rescue personnel continue to conduct search and rescue operations at collapse sites such as the Uranus Building in Hualien City and in Taroko and other places. Some residents of the Uranus Building recalled that they moved from the 1st floor to the 9th floor because of the 921 earthquake, thinking that living in a higher building would provide more living space."
  4. Li, Ming 李明 (2024-04-06). "天王星大楼开拆老妇冲现场哭求拿救命钱" [Old woman rushed to the scene of demolition of Uranus Building, crying and begging for life-saving money]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
    The article notes: "大楼正式拆除，对无法拿出家当的原住户来说，心中也是五味杂陈。其中有位老妇连日来重返现场，哭求工作人员让她重返大楼取出“救命钱”，不过由于现场相当危险，每次都只能铩羽而归。"
    From Google Translate: "The building was officially demolished, which brought mixed feelings to the original residents who were unable to take out their belongings. Among them, an old woman returned to the scene for several days, crying and begging the staff to let her return to the building to withdraw "life-saving money." However, because the scene was very dangerous, she could only fail every time."
2. Articles published before the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
  1. Selection of three sources:
    1. Rui, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1992-12-16). "卅五億元購台中太府天王星大樓星僑伍培菘投資敲定" [Purchase of Taifu Uranus Building in Taichung for NT$3.5 billion. Star Overseas Chinese Ng Pei Siong's investment finalised]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 7.
      The article notes: "太府建設公司興建的「天王星」大樓，位於台中市北屯路國民黨台灣省黨部斜對面，基地七百多坪，是地下五樓、地上廿層樓建築。太府建設主管表示，這棟大樓於民國七十八年間完工，地上九樓至廿樓辦公室已出售，其餘規劃為商場；但目前只有「金鼎綜合證券台中分公司」在九樓。"
      From Google Translate: ""The "Uranus" building built by Taifu Construction Company is located diagonally opposite the Kuomintang Taiwan Provincial Party Headquarters on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It has a site of more than 700 square meters and is a building with five floors underground and 20 floors above ground. The Taifu Construction Director said that this building was completed in the 1970s. The offices on the ninth to 20th floors above ground have been sold, and the rest are planned to be shopping malls; but currently only the "Jinding Comprehensive Securities Taichung Branch" is on the ninth floor."
      The article notes: "太府天王星大樓曾在民國七十九年間獲得建築金獅獎，它採用的「逆打沈箱」施工法，也是同業罕用的施工方式。"
      From Google Translate: "The Taifu Uranus Building won the Golden Lion Award for Architecture in the 1970s of the Republic of China. It adopted the "reverse caisson" construction method, which is also a construction method rarely used in the industry."
    2. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-31). "太府賣樓救急胡姬芳蹤不見購買天王星大樓價款遲未匯入市場關心是否有變" [Taifu sells property to rescue Hu Jifang, who is missing. The purchase price of the Uranus Building has not yet been remitted, and the market is concerned about whether there will be any changes]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 8.
      The article notes: "去(八十一)年十二月經濟部投審會通過最大的外僑投資案-新加坡胡姬集團來台購買太府建設公司的太府天王星大樓，計畫經營五星級觀光飯店案，因胡姬集團遲遲未將價款匯入，增添變數，加上最近太府建設公司傳出跳票，使這項交易備受矚目。"
      From Google Translate: "In December last year (81), the Investment Review Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs approved the largest foreign investment case - the Singapore Orchid Group came to Taiwan to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building of Taifu Construction Company and planned to operate a five-star tourist hotel. Hu Ji Group has been slow to remit the payment, adding to the uncertainty. Coupled with the recent reports of bounced orders from Taifu Construction Company, this transaction has attracted much attention."
      The article notes: "太府天王星大樓位於台中市北屯路上，為地上十九層、地下五層大樓，總面積一萬一千坪，前(八十)年中完工。當時太府建設興建這棟大樓煞費苦心，採用沈箱式施工法及新建材，成本比一般大樓高。其次，當初這棟大樓是採先建後售方式，完工後卻遇市場不景氣、股票大跌等，銷售不理想，現整棟大樓只有金鼎証券台中分公司在九樓營業。"
      From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is located on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground, with a total area of 11,000 square meters. It was completed in the middle of the past (80) years. At that time, Taifu Construction took great pains to build this building, using the caisson construction method and new materials, and the cost was higher than that of ordinary buildings. Secondly, this building was built first and sold later. After the completion, the market was in recession and the stock price plummeted, so sales were not satisfactory. Now only the Taichung branch of Jinding Securities is operating on the ninth floor of the entire building."
    3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1995-06-17). "標得法拍屋未必穩賺最近兩家銀行，標到太府天王星大樓，扣除當初貸款，帳面損失約3.5億元。" [Winning a bid for a foreclosure house may not guarantee a profit. Two banks recently bid for the Taifu Uranus Building. After deducting the original loan, the book losses were about $350 million.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.
      The article notes: "民國82年間倒閉的台中市太府建設公司，倒閉前在台中市北屯路上興建的太府天王星大樓，最近由法院執行拍賣，由當初提供貸款的慶豐銀行台中分行、中國信託商業銀行以8億2萬元得標，兩家銀行帳面損失約3.5億元。"
      From Google Translate: "The Taifu Construction Company of Taichung City, which went bankrupt in 1982, and the Taifu Uranus Building built on Beitun Road in Taichung City before its collapse, were recently auctioned by the court. The Taichung Branch of Ching Fung Bank and China Trust Commercial Bank, which originally provided the loan, signed the contract with 8 The bid was worth NT$20,000, and the two banks suffered a loss of approximately NT$350 million."
      The article notes: "太府天王星大樓為地上19層、地下5層建物，當初太府建設公司將這棟大樓規劃為百貨商場，並在81年間以太府天王星地下5樓至地上8樓，設定抵押給向尚未改制為銀行的國泰信託、中國信託公司，借貸11.5億元。"
      From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground. Originally, Taifu Construction Company planned this building as a department store, and in 1981, from the 5th underground floor to the 8th floor of Taifu Uranus, it was mortgaged to the people who have not yet restructured it. Cathay Trust and China Trust Company, which are banks, borrowed 1.15 billion yuan."
      The article notes: "太府建設公司倒閉後，太府天王星積欠的房屋稅未清，該棟大樓遭斷電斷水，地上8樓至19樓的部分承購戶根本無法使用，致該棟大樓目前空無一人，空著養蚊子。"
      From Google Translate: "After the collapse of Taifu Construction Company, Taifu Uranus' accumulated housing taxes were not paid off. The building was cut off from power and water, and some tenants on the 8th to 19th floors were unable to use it at all. As a result, the building is currently empty and empty. Keep mosquitoes."
  2. Additional coverage including passing mentions:
    1. "花蓮昨五級強震民眾奔逃‧高樓牆裂中橫落石‧火警虛驚" [Hualien was hit by a magnitude 5 earthquake yesterday. People fled, walls of high-rise buildings cracked, rocks fell, and the fire alarm was false.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1988-04-08. p. 10.
      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "花蓮市許多高樓建築物包括統帥大飯店、華王大飯店、天王星大樓等，部分牆壁被震出裂縫，壁磚紛紛掉落。"
      From Google Translate: "Many high-rise buildings in Hualien City, including the Tongshuai Hotel, Huawang Hotel, and Uranus Building, had some cracks in their walls and wall tiles falling off."
    2. Wang, Chunrui 王純瑞 (1990-09-17). "出品黃豆油換黃豆粉解決產銷失衡十三家黃豆廠以貨易貨和大陸做生意" [Replacing soybean oil with soybean flour to solve the imbalance between production and marketing. Thirteen soybean factories bartered to do business with the mainland]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 11.
      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "三、大府建設公司「天王星大樓」，為地上十九層、地下五層的建築。"
    3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-30). "龐大利息拖累太府建設跳票董事長陳立興指星胡姬集團購樓價款匯入即可解決" [Huge interest drags down Taifu construction delays. Chairman Chen Lixing pointed out that Hu Ji Group can solve the problem by remitting the purchase price]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.
      The article notes: "台中市老字號的太府建設公司最近傳出跳票二千五百多萬元，董事長陳立興昨(廿九)日坦然出面與相關金融機構謀求解決之道。他說，解決太府財務困難的關鍵，要等到取得新加坡胡姬集團購員太府天王星大樓的新台幣十九億元價款後，才可望化險為夷。"
      From Google Translate: "Taifu Construction Company, a time-honored company in Taichung City, recently reported that more than $25 million in checks had been bounced. Chairman Chen Li-hsing yesterday (29th) calmly came forward to seek a solution with relevant financial institutions. He said that the key to resolving Taifu's financial difficulties lies in obtaining the NT$1.9 billion price paid by Singapore's Orchid Group to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building."
      The article notes: "太府目前較大筆的金融機構貸款，主要是以太府天王星大樓向國泰信託及中國信託銀行質借的十一億元。"
      From Google Translate: "Taifu's current largest financial institution loan is mainly the $1.1 billion pledged by Taifu Uranus Building from Cathay Trust and China Trust Bank."
    4. Kang, Kunhuang 康堃皇 (2007-08-29). "下月20日投標台灣金服拍賣中市不動產" [Bid on the 20th of next month. Taiwan Financial Services Real Estate Listed for Auction]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.
      The article notes: "台灣金融資產服務公司將在9月20日舉行中國信託商業銀行暨慶豐商業銀行不動產拍賣，此次拍賣標的物位於台中市北區北屯路18號太府天王星大樓地下5樓至地上8樓。"
      From Google Translate: "Taiwan Financial Asset Services Corporation will hold the real estate auction of China Trust Commercial Bank and Ching Feng Commercial Bank on September 20. The auction subject matter is located on the ground floor of Taifu Uranus Building, No. 18, Beitun Road, North District, Taichung City. To the 8th floor above ground."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Uranus building (traditional Chinese: 天王星大樓; simplified Chinese: 天王星大楼) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Cunard. DANGA14^talk 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building has been written in many other sources (they talk directly about the details of the building, not just simply mentioning) globally and in English-language sources, which are:
Withdrawing. The coverage Cunard found is sufficient to address my concerns. Thank you _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to know more about why it's leaning. Aren't these countries trying to make sure buildings are able to survive earthquakes? Will there be that much detail in the article you want to merge to?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be erased after 10th May 2024. Great achievement (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School

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

Withdraw please WizardGamer775 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I don't believe this school is notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Searching it online, there are very few articles or things that mention the school. Even the things that mention the school are trivial. Therefore, I think this article fails WP:GNG. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A relatively large Canadian high school that is consistently rated well above average and among the top one or two percent of Ontario high schools by the Fraser Institute. Not in the article, but The latest Fraser Report has it at 8.8 and ranked 12/739 https://www.compareschoolrankings.org/school/on/secondary/894672 There seems to be quite a bit of coverage (and per WP:ARTN notability is not dependent on what is in the article): bullying and resulting gun threat (2019) https://www.yorkregion.com/news/video-markham-student-accused-of-gun-threats-speaks-out-about-bullying/article_06c23085-3847-50ce-9298-07dd86a2d786.html and https://www.yorkregion.com/news/crime/teen-charged-after-gun-threat-toward-markhams-pierre-elliott-trudeau-high-school/article_ddd6855d-4fe6-5926-9bf9-927858406caa.html; a report of the 2019 Fraser rankings https://www.yorkregion.com/news/trio-of-york-region-high-schools-are-in-ontario-s-top-10/article_25c98d5b-2f4a-5ca8-91cf-6351c5ffeae8.html; a TB case (2011) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/officials-investigate-tb-case-at-markham-high-school-1.654071; a sexual exploitation case involving a staff member and several students (2013) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2013/12/19/markham-high-school-caretaker-accused-of-sex-offences/; etc. Meters (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Meters. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability of a subject is rooted in references available for the subject, not the state of the article. It is such a time waster to have repeated community review of articles where the result is a foregone conclusion. A partial return to OUTCOMES is needed.Jacona (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McClurg

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

Delete: fails NACTOR, GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet GNG. Like I always said, this is not a case of if System bias since the media was then in America and some other countries. Failing SIGCOV whatsoever conjures to lack of verification of he starred in the films. For now, no way going to check sources—when there is non! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bailing

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as coverage is limited to match reports etc. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Reddi

AfDs for this article:

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

Resume written by User:UofMMedia, now blocked, likely a COI'd editor connected with the subject's alma mater or current employer. See related discussion on WP:COIN. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article has no significant independent coverage and I could not find any. See below for source assessment. He may meet WP:NACADEMIC (although I am skeptical) as he is co-author on a few papers with >200 citations. Note that Google Scholar data is incorrect, listing at least two papers on which he is not a co-author. However, if he is a notable academic we'd essentially have to start over from scratch to obtain a neutral article. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Science, and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Pubmed listing of the Google Scholar articles.... The publications appear to be in peer reviewed journals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22anand+reddi%22. There also does appear to be a number of global health publications and focus Ajsk123 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
European AIDS Treatment Group	~ Advocacy organization	~	Reddi is quoted	✘ No
Highleyman	Dead link			? Unknown
University of Michigan	It's his alma mater		Dead link, but presumably routine university PR	✘ No
"Leadership"			Failed verification	✘ No
BMC Pediatr.	Paper co-authored by Reddi			✘ No
The Telegraph			Quote and brief coverage. Doesn't support claims in the article that he was the "architect".	✘ No
The Guardian			Quote	✘ No
HuffPost Bio		~		✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
HuffPost article (Emanuel)	OpEd reply			✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
Devex			Quote	✘ No
Devex			Single mention	✘ No
Businesswire	Press release			✘ No
HuffPost article	OpEd written by Reddi			✘ No
"Human capital contracts..."	Paper co-authored by Reddi			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, South Africa, Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed article about a researcher that fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG per the source assessment. Looks like one who may meet WP:GNG in the future. Per nom and previous AFD concern indicates WP:NPOL and needs rewriting from scratch! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does not seem to have become an academic physician (one with a faculty position at a medical school), and I don't think his student publications rise to the level of WP:PROF (as they usually don't, and especially after filtering out the not-his publications from his badly curated or uncurated Google Scholar listing). That leaves WP:GNG and the source analysis above, which I find convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG by the argument: the reasons it failed WP:GNG (and WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR) have not changed since the first AfD (which succeeded as speedy delete) for this article, and so it still fails WP:GNG. A journal search shows nothing significant since 2012, and only news results are a non-quote passing mention: so, nothing to invalidate the previous reasoning. Kimen8 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. For certain his publications and scientific awards do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The reason I use weak is that I find this page odd. Based upon the short business CV Google shows he has been in the corporate sector for some time. However, none of that is in the page, and as currently written he has no income and has not had any for a while. That seems flawed. Maybe WP:TNT is called for, although it looks like nobody has the energy to do the research to sort this out.

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorr the Golden Gorilla

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

Proposing merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G#Gorr the Golden Gorilla: This stub on a minor character fails WP:Notability (fictional characters), WP:Notability (fiction) (especially for "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details."), and the WP:General notability guideline by lacking sufficient and significant coverage from independent, third-party reliable sources with no reception, analysis, background/development, legacy, or other real-world information. It only has a brief lead, publication history and fictional powers and the bulk of the article is the fictional biography which primarily cites the comics directly and an infobox, along with two images (which in of itself is not that common or useful for such a small article). It was previously Gorr (comics) as a composite article before it was split into Gorr the God Butcher, which has proven to be more suitable than this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom for the reasons cited, unless there are more sources that can be found. BOZ (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting character, but merge, per BOZ. BD2412 T 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended by all above. I know nobody is actually advocating for deletion thus far, but since this is AfD, it is worth stating for the record that deletion is not an option because of attribution requirements per WP:ATTREQ, i.e. the original authorship history for Gorr the God Butcher resides in the history of this article. -2pou (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G per all. Not enough WP:SIGCOV but merge is a valid alternative (after a clean-up). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus I see is that the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability by the guidelines that exist for this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney's Funny Factory

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

I am also nominating:

Unremarkable and inconsequential DVD compilations. --wooden superman 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deproDed all those pages (same nominator; was yesterday) (and redirected one), adding one ref to each of these pages. Unremarkable and inconsequential is not a good reason for deletion in my view. I have no time to improve the pages right now, especially as this is a bundled nom. But for example for the Small World, one click shows that some reviews exist (DVD talk; this; and that seems to be the case for EACH volume of EACH of these compilations.....) Has a BEFORE been performed for all these compilations?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animation, Film and Disney. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Besides the reviews already added, Walt Disney's Funny Factory also has reviews in The Providence Journal and the Journal & Courier, Walt Disney's It's a Small World of Fun! also has reviews in the Journal & Courier, The Globe & Mail and the Times Record News, and Walt Disney's Timeless Tales also has reviews in Deseret News and The Dallas Morning News. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see any true notability for this; Disney put out many of these compilations for kids to watch on long drives, and this is another garden variety collection. A mass of reviews≠automatic notability, and there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. Nate • (chatter) 16:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but, as I am certain that you know, notabilty on Wikipedia is based on the existence of reliable independent sources covering the subject. In particular, multiple reliable reviews are generally considered enough for articles about film productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me repeat again; there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. I don't look at just reviews when I determine deletion/keep, because there is well more to an article than just reviewing a work, and I just can't see beyond reviews for a basic consumer DVD of cartoons whose purpose was more distraction than collection. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only direct you to the guidelines again. That these compilations were made more for distraction than collection is possible (and some reviewers concur with you, btw) but that's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. I really have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information: On 2nd thoughts and after further checking, I undid the redirect of the 4th Deproded page I mentioned in my !vote (was far from perfect) and moved the page (the name is now EXTREMELY generic but that's the actual title of the compilation series). Just saying this here for information as maybe the nominator might wish to know. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: These are absolutely run-of-the-mill products. They exist, but they are not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are not notable. Sources on the page and presented here by Somebodyidkfkdt tend to prove just the opposite. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:ROTM product reviews. --wooden superman 09:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're reviews= significant coverage from reliable independent sources. And that's the requirement on Wikipedia. And no, on top of that, sorry, I don't think you can call them "run-of-the-mill", especially after reading the essay whose link you provided and that I am inviting you to read (again) too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These reviews are not the WP:SIGCOV required to demonstrate notability, they are just run of the mill product reviews. These are inconsequential DVD compilation releases which, I'm sorry, have no place in an encyclopedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are some DVD and Blu-ray box sets which are critically acclaimed and have a tremendous amount of coverage in reviews, etc., but for the most part, even these do not warrant articles. These trivial little entries in the Disney catalogue just simply aren't worthy of inclusion. --wooden superman 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Your opinion about those compilations was clear from the start. These reviews are significant coverage and denying it is almost bizarre, I think. You don't need positive reviews (let alone, "critical acclaim") nor "tremendous amount of coverage" to prove something is notable on WP. You need multiple reviews. Some have been presented. Calling the subject "trivial", "unremarkable", etc., expresses, I'm afraid, only your opinion about the compilations, and has little to do with their notability (according to WP). My personal opinion about them has, for example, nothing to do with my !vote. I have no further comment (as I fear I could only repeat what I have already said) and I only wish that, next time you take an article to AFd or ProD one, you perform a (better) BEFORE. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial and unremarkable. It's not like we're talking about the Walt Disney Treasures series here. --wooden superman 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Again, this discussion should be based on what the sources can establish not the editors' opinion of the article subject. Please assess the sources brought up over the course of this nomination period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reviews provided seem to establish significant coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple critical reviews cited in each article. Walt Disney's Funny Factory alone has four independent critical reviews and a journal article cited in the article. Additional coverage in news sources provided above by Somebodyidkfkdt clinch this as an obvious keep. The delete votes are not based in policy and are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The reviews found by Mushy Yank and Somebodyidkfkdt as well as the reviews already linked in the articles clearly establish that all three of these DVD series meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles.
The deletion arguments "there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up" and "WP:ROTM product reviews" are not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles, Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, or any other policy or guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Nonsense Cunard. That's never been consensus opinion at AFD regarding articles in the creative arts. Critical reviews in independent secondary sources are exactly the type of RS required for articles on all types of works of art.A review is SIGCOV, and if we have multiple reviews it passes GNG. period.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?..... That's precisely what Cunard is saying.......I think you've misread the comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, Mushy Yank. I agree with what 4meter4 said about multiple critical reviews meaning a work of art passes the general notability guideline. I quoted those sentences written by editors supporting deletion to say those views are not supported by policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I must have read something wrong when I was tired. Apologies.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The reception section in each of these articles and the reviews mentioned above allows them to pass notability. They can all be improved rather than deleted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Westminster International University in Tashkent. Consensus is the rewrite fixed the content issues, but not the notability ones. Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Academy of London

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

Contested PROD for not being uncontroversial (though not by me). Appears to be original research, possible redirect to Joseph Mifsud? IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article provide SIGCOV. They are primary or press releases with no depth of coverage (Azerbaijan, check if recognized, GCU, opening of new), unreliable forums (houzz, diplomacy.edu), or not even mentioned (US News, Guardian). Nothing better found in my searching. We don't have to dig into the controversy or decide on its legitimacy to determine that it's not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree none of the current sources provide RS SIGCOV. I found this article in the Stirling Uni student newspaper [11] and this in the BBC [12]. The first may not be reliable and the latter might not be enough SIGCOV. There is this Guardian article which arguably is RS SIGCOV [13]. In any case all the coverage seems to be in connection with Joseph Mifsud. The Guardian article also makes clear the LAD no longer exists as does the Brig piece. In that context, it seems most sensible to me to keep it as a redirect to Joseph Mifsud. Perhaps to a section on the LAD in that article? I'd be happy to create it. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ill advised since there is no mention of Joseph Mifsud in Diplomatic Academy of London and no mention of Diplomatic Academy of London in Joseph Mifsud. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:OR and per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an attack piece, and is full of errors which is why it should be deleted and not kept. The claims that these programs are not accredited is false. These are university departments inside respected research universities. There are several different university programs being confused, they are not the same program but multiple different university departments, many of them founded by the same academic, Nabil Ayad, who seems to have made a career setting up departments for UK research universities wanting to take in foreign students from outside the UK. The history here seems to have cobbled together these different non-affiliated programs (each university's department is separate to its own school) through a bunch of original research and spurious claims that are not cited to a reliable secondary sources. The London Academy of Diplomacy was a diplomatic studies department at the University of East Anglia for foreign students studying at the university and its diplomas are awarded through that institution. It closed in 2016.

As for the Diplomatic Academy of London. It is a respectable institution/department that was for a long time housed at the University of Westminster (and still is sort of). It's listed as graduate diplomatic studies program at the University of Westminster in Bulletin - Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. 1992. p. 109., "Overseas". Pacific Research: A Periodical of the Peace Research Centre. 5–6. Australian National University: 41. 1992. It was absorbed into the Westminster International University in Tashkent which is part of the University of Westminster. (see Can the Prizes Still Glitter?: The Future of British Universitites in a Changing World. University of Buckingham Press. 2007. p. 194. ISBN 9780955464201. which lists the school as part of the Westminster International University in Tashkent in 2007.) I can't find a source, but I would imagine that it was absorbed into that school in 2002 when Westminster restructured it diplomatic/international studies programs when the Westminster International University in Tashkent was founded. As far as I can tell the school is still a department inside the WIUT and offers its courses to foreign students in London and is accredited as part of the WIUT through which its students receive both graduate and post-graduate degrees from the WIUT.

I found quite a lot of citations to publications by this organization, and coverage of some of their symposiums in reliable academic journals dating back as far is the mid 1990s. For example their symposium The Information Explosion : A Challenge for Diplomacy had coverage in The World Today,Volume 53, Issues 1-12 - page 158-159. The organization is listed as a reliable academic publisher in Behle, Sabine, ed. (1994). Publishers' International ISBN Directory/International ISBN Agency, Volume 1. K.G. Saur. p. 708. There's WP:SIGCOV in Demut, Andreas (ed.). Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs?: Vorträge und Aufsätze der Konferenz über Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen als Folge der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Veränderungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Lit Verlag. p. 254-255. ISBN 9783825822224. The organization was also a partner with the United Nations for an Ocotber 25, 2002 symposium entitle The UN and the Media in War and Peace (see Ahmar, Moonis (ed.). Different Perceptions on Conflict Resolution Need for an Alternate Approach. Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. p. 255. There's a lot more out there. All of this to say, we could have an article, but it's definitely not this article which is both factually wrong and a horribly unethical attack page.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep, although I am not typically a big fan of articles on individual university departments. I re-wrote the article to remove the OR. It's a stub. I also knocked off a stub on London Academy of Diplomacy. Pinging IgelRM, David Eppstein, The Herald, the article is vastly different now. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely rewritten about a different topic now (good work), although I am not certain of this departments notability. Though the AFD process is a bit of mess now, maybe the previous version should still be deleted. IgelRM (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM It's a small enough article that we could always redirect and merge to Westminster International University in Tashkent per WP:ATD. It would be fine as a subsection of that article.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or outright delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rewritten article to Westminster International University in Tashkent as suggested above. Thanks to 4meter4 for the rewrite. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fairly young, but based on this page they have little to show for. The Banner talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Westminster International University in Tashkent: we have more than enough sources to establish verifiability, and do not need independent notability for a section in the target. The Delete !votes haven't presented any valid reason why the page shouldn't be allowed to stay as a redirect to a valid article. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957. There's a consensus not to outright delete, but arguments for redirecting carry more P&G weight, in addition to being more numerous than the Keep ones. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Sunfield tornado

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

I'm sorry, but this is getting out of hand. This article is WAY too short to be here and unless you have some way to expand it, the article should be deleted or redirected back to the main tornado outbreak article. Not every strong to violent tornado needs an individual article; please remember that. ChessEric 00:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957 where I think this event already has sufficient coverage. This is arguably an unnecessary fork of that article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a weird argument for keep, but my reasoning is a mix of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it passing WP:NEVENT. So obviously it passess NEVENT's lasting criteria with articles like this one 55 years after the tornado. But actually, the tornado is more notable than the overall outbreak and Wikipedia viewcounts tell us that. This tornado article has been viewed 4,800+ times since its creation in September 2023. The outbreak article has been viewed just over 4,000 times in the last year (April 2023 to March 2024). It is obvious people are specifically searching for this tornado over the outbreak associated with it. So in a weird way, the split article is the primary tornado from the outbreak. Article size for the tornado article is over 7,000 bytes while the 3-day tornado outbreak with 37 tornadoes is 53,000 bytes. There was a similar conversation (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS time) for the 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado, which was split from the 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak. A third-party editor commented amid the content dispute (separate article or not) and determined it could be a separate article as it passed the criteria to be a stand-alone article. Now, in the last month, the tornado article was viewed nearly 400 times more than the outbreak article and also got to GA rank. Obviously, this article doesn't have GA potential due to the lack of information regarding the tornado, but nonetheless, it does pass the criteria for a stand-alone article. So I am very strongly opposed to a full deletion. My !vote should be seen as a full keep !vote unless consensus starts favoring another verdict. In the event of a consensus forming for a merge or delete, this !vote can be seen as a support for a merge (i.e. not opposed to a merge if consensus falls that direction). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments demonstrate a precedent rather than poorly justifying an unrelated article's retention, and Weather Event Writer seems to have it right. There is a general case for the tornado's individual notability (even decades on). Could a merge conversation conceivably take place? Sure. But this seems to be a strong enough topic to stand on its own from the broader outbreak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to entry in Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957. I would have said "merge" but there appear to be major factual accuracy problems: the NWS report indicates that the tornado started a ways north of the town and went away from it, not into it; also I don't know why the intersection would be called the "wye" since it is a perfectly ordinary crossroads. It could be made into a separate entry within that article (as is the case for two of the tornadoes in the outbreak) but if so, the text needs to be researched anew. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I am not sure what NWS report you are referring to? The entire NOAA report for the tornado can be seen on Wikisource (Wikisource: NCDC Climatological Data National Summary for the 1957 Sunfield tornado) and it clearly states, "Occurred at junction of highways 51 and 154. Small crossroads settlement at Sunfield "Y" wiped out. Very heavy destruction in small area. Several survisors took cover in buildings. Man remaining in open killed. Tornado moved east-northeastward." Could you link what NWS report you are seeing, because there is a chance it is a media report and not the official government reports. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's that NOAA report to which I refer. If you look at the map of the path and zoom out a bit, you can see Sunfield SSE of the touchdown point. Reviewing the other sources it seems clear to me that they were referring to damage at the intersection and then further east, not in the town itself. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Oh you mean the storm event database. Yeah, don't use the map. The map is not a representation of the tornado track. It just draws a straight line from the start to the end of the track. The 2013 El Reno tornado is a very good example of that straight line path drawn for those maps. NOAA produced an actual map of the tornadoes track (an image in the Wikipedia article), but if you look at the Storm Event Database report for it, it just draws the straight line. NOAA also says this just above the maps: "Note: The tornado track is approximate based on the beginning (B) and ending (E) locations. The actual tornado path may differ from a straight line."

Also just a side note, you can take a look at User:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1 and User talk:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1#Follow up with 32k version of GPT4, where myself and another editor actually used A.I. to basicaly fact-check and check the verifiability of the article. Both of us came to the same overall conclusion of it being verifiable and accurate based on the sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One extra note I wanted to mention, the Storm Event Database, while official as in from the government, is not the actual "official" report for the tornado. That comes from the "Climatological Data National Summary December 1957" paper released in 1958. Basically what is on Wikisource is the formally "official" report for the tornado. The other NOAA sources are official as they are from NOAA, but were made decades after the tornado in the internet era. NOAA discontinued the large paper-based official reports in November 2018 and from December 2018 to present, the Storm Event Database is the official location for tornado records. But the paper/PDF reports are official reports pre-December 2018. You can see these publications here and here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, but again, when I read all these various sources, none of them says that the tornado went though Sunfield. They all say that the tornado touched down near the intersection, obliterated everything there, and proceeded ENE. The Benton News story is particularly detailed. You are spending too much time on what is an irrelevancy; regardless of which source you prefer, none of them says what the article claims they say. Sunfield itself was not touched by the tornado. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Now that the accuracy issue is solved, would you reconsider your !vote, which was “redirect” with the sole explanation of the now fixed issue. I am not swaying, but even you have to admit it does pass WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING, i.e. it meets all stand-alone article criteria. Plus, it gets more views than the outbreak overall does, indicating that it is potentially more notable than the outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Back as an unnecessary split. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Adani (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanique Palmer}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moesa Pancho}}<!--Relisted-->