Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 01	December 03 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Garrett Siegel

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

Created by a SPA in June 2024. No obvious notability. Sources very undistinguished, many of them repetitive. Recent further editing by probable, and now-banned, paid editor. Brammarb (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination says it well. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:04, 7 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Harrell

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Despite the volume of provided sources, most of those are competition results and databases, and what isn't appears to mostly be skating blogs. I'll let the community decide whether what's there qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Hanna Harrell medaled at the US senior championships. Significant coverage surely exists. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSKATE calls for a gold medal at the senior national champiomships; her highest finish was 4th. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSKATE says that the criteria are chosen on the grounds that "significant coverage is likely to exist for figure skating figures if they [do these things]". And I think it's impossible that a US championships medalist would not have significant coverage. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a very quick search and have found an NBC article ("Hanna Harrell talks taking on Russians at world junior championships") and a YouTube documentary/reportage by U.S. Figure Skating ("Portrait of a Skater — Hanna Harrell"). There's also a full-fledged biography on the Texas Children's Hospital website (here). --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NBC article and YouTube story are both interviews so they don't count towards notability per WP:Interview#Notability which requires the interview include reliable secondary coverage (very few interviews have this). I've had conversations with editors in the last few months around interviews counting and in every case, interviews as sources I presented were denied as counting towards notability. The Texas Children's Hospital article is promoting the hospital so I don't think it wouldn't count as either. Nnev66 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's an athlete that has competed for her country internationally. There are similar athletes on Wikipedia whose notability isn't questioned with far less developed articles. I can't understand why this is even an issue. ash (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Competing internationally isn't inherently notable. Unfortunately, nothing that this skater has done meets the standards of notability established per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, she meets WP:GNG. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD.
Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale:
· Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas
· Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas (2nd nomination).
Are you planning to nominate it 100 times? (It is a good tactics that I have seen being used successfully. Sooner or later no one notices and the proposal passes. I can't be here on Wikipedia 24/7.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable for inclusion per GNG. Vedicant (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this could benefit from more specific discussion about sources, and fewer accusations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe these two sources from the article, which have WP:SIGCOV, count towards WP:GNG. The others are standings, passing mentions, or interviews. I searched Proquest and Newspapers.com but didn't find anything there. Nnev66 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Capellazzi, Gina (February 26, 2019). "Hanna Harrell ready to make her 'debut to the world' at the 2019 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". figureskatersonline.com.
2. Rutherford, Lynn (March 7, 2019). "Ambitious Harrell Will Reach for the Stars in Zagreb". U.S. Figure Skating. Archived from the original on March 15, 2019.
Weak Keep I think NATHLETE can be established, but some work is needed. What's there now is a start, there are too many shared references, but given the information in the article so far, I am willing to believe that more references specifically about the subject can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for additional references but couldn’t find any. The subject showed promise in 2018-2019 and there were two articles published in figure skating sites (I’m going to assume they are reliable sources). But then she was injured and from the article she hasn’t performed well after that. So I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find anything else but perhaps someone will in next few days. Nnev66 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clear WP:GNG-passing coverage. Reminder that the various sports SNGs do still require a GNG pass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking any sort of news coverage [1] is about the best there is, and it's likely not a RS. Being a patient at the hospital is fine, but it doesn't prove notability. The other sources used in the article are primary or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 10 December 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. asilvering (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50+ Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find one book review for HoopDaddy [2], which isn't enough to pass AUTHOR. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I've added some sources from Newspapers.com, I'll admit they aren't super strong but they were quick to add so it's a weak keep for now. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of WP:RS coverage and failing WP:GNG criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 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. Please note that this does not preclude a possible merge discussion down the line. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for historic reasons. There are plenty of notable people from Nepal who were recognized after getting this award. It has been stopped because of royal name attached to it after Nepal entered into the republic era. Plenty of sources are available if you search in native language (i.e. Nepali - इन्द्रराज्यलक्ष्मी प्रज्ञा–पुरस्कार) nirmal (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable national award established by a Head of state. We generally keep awards with national significance.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: From [3] page 49 (reflected in the Himalayan Times article[4]), this award was the fourth -- and least important -- of the New Years' arts awards from the Royal Nepal Academy. I'm ok with a keep for now (in the interests of a close), but believe that a subsequent merge to Royal Nepal Academy leaving cats intact would be preferable given the minimal detail (inclusion of awards with limited coverage at their issuing organisation's article is fairly common). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:37, 9 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minera Valparaíso

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no sources cited in the article. Created by a sockpuppet, see previous AfD. I don't know if WP:G5 applies anymore since it's over 10 years. Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Chile. Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 9 December 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. Editors interested in converting this article to a Redirect can begin a discussion on the article talk page about that possibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger LC carbine

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

Disputed WP:BLAR but this article fails our WP:NOT policy, it is little more than a catalogue listing for two of the related guns by the company. As the BLAR was disputed, I proposed redirect to Sturm, Ruger & Co.#Products. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I created the page for other to edit it as they wish. I oppose the deletion of the LC carbine wikipedia page outright. Stormm001 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs sourcing... Some coverage in the NRA magazine [5] and in Guns magazine [6]. The NRA would certainly be biased, but I see no reason it would not be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You 🙏🏻 Stormm001 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would point out that the coverage is not the issue and I too saw some reviews in conducting a BEFORE. I'm not saying the notability of the subject is the concern here. To Oaktree b's point, not only does it need additional sourcing in the article, it needs content. My argument instead was a WP:NOT policy. Redirect and tag with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R with history}} but presently two infoboxes and some catalogue stats do not an article make. Like I said, this is just the formal process of a disputed WP:BLAR. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Topic appears to be notable, though article needs expansion. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:58, 17 December 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 Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport Arena. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Arena

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the other are some type of listing. It's not a television stattion. It appears that it is some type of content which is available for streaming. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport Arena It's a basic overflow channel and nothing more. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above Classic case of a big bouquet of channels that only deserve mention in their parent outlet's page. There's a whole footnote of WP:NCBC for this exact kind of deletion discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 3 December 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 Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport MotoGP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport MotoGP

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. Two are their own website and the other is some type of program listing. Tagged by others since Sept 2024. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport MotoGP Actual article content here is nonsense from a globally-locked account which reads like Google Translate polling ChatGPT for some reason; this is a real channel, but all it does is carry motorcycle races from said platform. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 3 December 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 Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport MotoGP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Uno

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the others are some type of listing. (It's not broadcast television channel.) Tagged by others for sourcing issues since march North8000 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky Italia.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport Uno Actual article content here is nonsense from a globally-locked account which reads like Google Translate polling ChatGPT for some reason; this is a real channel, but now part of a suite. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, now we have two different Redirect target article suggestions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 4 December 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!} 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurida Gadirova Ateshi

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. REFBOMB and promotional concerns…All of the sources are not adequate for notability. Kadı Message 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Azerbaijan. Kadı Message 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Kadı Message 21:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. Several articles by them are available on Academia. Besides, if you think there is a WP:REFBOMB' you can fix it, and you can also remove the promotional content. I don't think deleting it would be a good idea. Baqi:) (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi, Could you please indicate the valuable sources by providing links which you are referring in your opinion? Kadı Message 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With many book publications, WP:AUTHOR is plausible, but only if we can find multiple reliable-published reviews of multiple books. I didn't find any in Google Scholar and JSTOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this discussion a little bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 December 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!} 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Prada

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

Stub about a basketball coach. I took a crack at looking for material but came up short. Best I could add is that he did one year as an assistant coach in the NBA. I could flesh it out with more lower level teams he was associated with, but I found nothing but database entries and mentions in passing of his short stints at colleges and a Chinese team, so it does nto seem worth it. No in depth sources about him, so no evidence he passes WP:SPORTBASIC. No evidence he ever played in NBA so fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Don't see this meeting WP:NBIO Meters (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that there was an unsourced (and undone) edit last year that claimed that as of 2023 he was a middle school basketball coach [12]. Meters (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am getting some hits in google books. I think it highly probable that there may be coverage in newspaper archives. Anyone able to check newspapers.com?4meter4 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw this if suitable coverage is found, but I didn't find any in depth coverage. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill coach with short stints at various colleges, and who peaked with one year as an assistant in the NBA. Meters (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, China, Alabama, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage. Vedicant (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:13, 7 December 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Tourism

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

There does not appear to be any significant coverage of this company to pass WP:NCORP. The sources that were added by the article creator [13] in response to my PROD are merely company listings on other websites and not significant coverage. – notwally (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. – notwally (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This is a listed company that has been on the Shanghai Stock Exchange since 1996, and there is no problem with WP:NORG (WP:LISTED). In addition, I added Western media sources such as Financial Times and Bloomberg. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the policy you cited: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability." The Financial Times and Bloomberg company profiles you added are not significant coverage that would establish notability, and I have not found sources with significant coverage when trying to research this company. If these sources exist, then you should add them into the article. – notwally (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I believe that all Wikipedia editors are equal; therefore, the use of the term should reflects a deficiency in reasonableness and mutual trust. Secondly, this is a Chinese publicly traded corporation, and I have included extensive information in Chinese; but I would not assert that proficiency in Chinese is necessary to comprehend this material. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehension isn't the issue, lack of coverage is. We'd need stories in news media about this corporate entity, to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TinaLees-Jones, I'm not sure what kind of non-WP:AGF nonsense you are going on about, but "should" is literally taken directly from the notability guideline you cited: "Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability." I do not see significant coverage from any of the sources you have added, including the Chinese-language citations. If any non-English sources do have significant coverage, could you please point them out? – notwally (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a substantial amount of information regarding Chinese literature, complete with Google Books sources and links. I have additionally attempted to incorporate other English literature mentioned in the article. These book sources have demonstrated their significance and relevance in comparison to web sites. I trust you will also acknowledge that the entries are more comprehensive and reflect the authors' efforts. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:SIRS notability for listed companies on major exchanges (such as the Shanghai Stock Exchange) can be shown using analyst reports. Examples of in-depth analysis for this company include:

Pacific Securities (太平洋证) 2021 results analysis: https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H3_AP202109221517795746_1.pdf?1632294522000.pdf 2021-09-17
Bank of China International Securities, In-depth *Company* Tibet Tourism (600749) Review: 11 billion yuan acquisition of Lakala as a third-party payment https://stock.finance.sina.com.cn/stock/go.php/vReport_Show/kind/search/rptid/530988963292/index.phtml
Huaxin Securities (华鑫证券) Tibet Tourism (600749) Annual Report Commentary: Non-operating income reverses company performance https://stock.finance.sina.com.cn/stock/go.php/vReport_Show/kind/search/rptid/507833584150/index.phtml

A long list of analyst reports can be found here[14] Oblivy (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are analyst reports are the same as comments on the company's annual reports? Also, it does not appear that the list of reports you provided are all about this company. – notwally (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we going on about financial reports and nothing about what the company actually does day-to-day? They manage tourist sites, but how, and how does the country manage this. I'm not seeing a lot about site management, and way too much information the reader has no care about such as their rental car service and its financials or what in the Sam Hill a 'Sherpa Ram Art Performance Company' does. This is of no use to anyone traveling or being a tourist. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Financial summaries don't help show notability, literally every publicly traded company will have one (its the very basic part of a robust and accountable financial system). Building an article out of these summaries doesn't prove notability, only that they haven't lied in their financial reporting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Tourism in Tibet This article doesn't really impart any information about the company, just its mere existence, and the title is something that the average reader should expect to lead to information about general tourism in the country, not a corporate article (which...the actual offerings of the company, not its mundane stock performance or corporate mergers/transactions, should be highlighted here rather than hilariously incorrect prose like six companies constitute a solid tourism service system); if it is kept, this needs to be renamed to its full corporate name for transparency and hatnoted in Tourism in Tibet. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per Nate's above argument(s). Additionally, strongly agree that if it is kept, some additional form of transparency AND differentiation (from Tourism in Tibet) is needed, lest Wikipedia provide "Tourism Tibet" marketing.MWFwiki (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
  The numerous analyst reports found by Oblivy (talk · contribs) strongly establish notability as they each provide a summary of the company's activities and the analyst's opinion about the company's strengths and weaknesses. The argument that analyst reports do not contribute to notability is directly contradicted by the text of the notability guideline for companies.
  I have listed two additional book sources below to show that the company has received coverage beyond analyst reports.
2. Luo, Li 罗莉, ed. (2015). 西藏文化产业发展探析 [Evolution of the Development of Tibet Cultural Industry] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. pp. 381–384. ISBN 978-7-5097-5473-3. Retrieved 2024-12-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "西藏旅游股份有限公司是西藏本土第一家上市公司,也是西藏自治区唯一一家以旅游、文化传媒为主业的上市公司。"
  From Google Translate: "Tibet Tourism Co., Ltd. is the first listed company in Tibet and the only listed company in Tibet Autonomous Region with tourism and cultural media as its main business."
  The book notes: "西藏旅游股份有限公司的各类子公司涵盖了吃、住、行、游、购、娱等方面,公司除了在旅游创收方面表现卓越以外,还以传播西藏文化为己任,推动藏族文化、藏族歌舞戏剧向世界的传播。这些子公司主要有以下几个。一是西藏圣地国际体育旅游公司。它是西藏旅游行业的旗舰企业——西藏旅游股份有限公司的全资子公司,成立于1984年,是西藏成立最早的旅游企业也是西藏具备经营出境旅游业务的三家企业之一。"
  From Google Translate: "The various subsidiaries of Tibet Tourism Co., Ltd. cover food, accommodation, transportation, travel, shopping, entertainment and other aspects. In addition to its outstanding performance in generating tourism income, the company also takes it as its mission to spread Tibetan culture and promote the spread of Tibetan culture, Tibetan songs, dances and dramas to the world. These subsidiaries mainly include the following. The first is Tibet Holy Land International Sports Tourism Company. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tibet Tourism Co., Ltd., the flagship enterprise of the Tibetan tourism industry. It was established in 1984. It is the earliest tourism enterprise established in Tibet and one of the three enterprises in Tibet that can operate outbound tourism business."
  The book notes: "该公司拥有西藏规模最大、性能最好的越野车队和旅游车队,有各种型号的运营车辆293辆,其中路虎揽胜2辆、丰田陆地巡洋舰 100 型 11辆、大型客车50辆,中型客车200辆,小型客车 30 辆。车队司机大部分都有10年以上的高原驾驶经验,通晓藏语和普通话,能承接各类大中小型旅游运输、探险旅游、后备物资供应、特种探险后备物资供应、徒步旅行配套服务等西藏及周边境内旅游活动。"
  From Google Translate: "The company has the largest and best-performing off-road and tourist fleet in Tibet, with 293 operating vehicles of various models, including 2 Range Rovers, 11 Toyota Land Cruisers 100, 50 large buses, 200 medium buses, and 30 small buses. Most of the drivers have more than 10 years of plateau driving experience, are proficient in Tibetan and Mandarin, and can undertake various large, medium and small tourist transportation, adventure tourism, reserve material supply, special adventure reserve material supply, hiking supporting services and other tourism activities in Tibet and surrounding areas."
3. Wang, Liyan 王立彥; Yin, Meiqun 尹美群; Zhang, Jidong 張繼東 (2015). 中国旅游企业社会责任报告现状与研究 [Social Responsibility of Chinese Tourism Enterprises: Current Status and Research] (in Chinese). Beijing: Tourism Education Press. pp. 187–189. ISBN 978-7-5637-3175-6. Retrieved 2024-12-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "西藏旅游全称西藏旅游股份有限公司,成立于1996年; 截至2012 年末,公司的主营业务包括旅游景区业务、旅游服务业务和传媒文化业务。公司涉猎范围较广,但主营较为突出,其中景区业务为公司的主要业务收入来源,2012年占公司总收入的67%。景区业务主要包括景区内运输、接待等方面。公司2012年收购了林芝地区的鲁朗4A景区,拥有阿里神山圣湖景区经营权,其他景区还包括林芝地区雅江大峡谷景区、巴松措景区等,开发了短程游艇、帐篷营地等新产品。在旅游服务业务方面,公司涉足酒店行业和旅行社行业。"
  From Google Translate: "Tibet Tourism, whose full name is Tibet Tourism Co., Ltd., was established in 1996. As of the end of 2012, the company's main businesses include tourist scenic spot business, tourism service business and media and cultural business. The company covers a wide range of business, but its main business is more prominent. Among them, the scenic spot business is the company's main source of business income, accounting for 67% of the company's total income in 2012. The scenic spot business mainly includes transportation and reception in the scenic spot. In 2012, the company acquired the Lulang 4A scenic spot in Linzhi area and has the operating rights of the Ali Shenshan Shenghu scenic spot. Other scenic spots include the Yajiang Grand Canyon scenic spot and Basongcuo scenic spot in Linzhi area. New products such as short-distance yachts and tent camps have been developed. In terms of tourism service business, the company is involved in the hotel industry and travel agency industry."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tibet Tourism (simplified Chinese: 西藏旅游股份有限公司; traditional Chinese: 西藏旅遊股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors have made arguments that the article's title is incorrect. Arguments about whether this company is the WP:COMMONNAME for the search term "Tibet Tourism" can be held in a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion on the talk page. Editors have made arguments that the article's content has inaccurate or inelegant wording and is incomplete. This can be addressed by improving the article. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now would be the time for the article to be improved. MWFwiki (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:NEXISTS says: Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.
Although it should be beyond dispute the article should be improved, there's no guarantee those changes would result in a keep vote. Now would be the time for the article to be kept, and the existence of sources in the article can be dealt with once it's clear that work won't get deleted in a few days. Oblivy (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation of NEXISTS. You can delay “immediately” indefinitely. At what point do we call it out? We are evaluating the article as it exists. It should be deleted as-is, and I have yet to see any modifications to it that would change my opinion. MWFwiki (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interpretation that I believe enjoys some support in the community. You might want to refer to WP:NOIMPROVEMENT for a start. Oblivy (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MWFwiki Deletion is not cleanup and this article does not have to be improved for it to be kept. Poor quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Oblivy and Cunard. I think Cunard has figured out "what the company actually does day-to-day", so Nate, do you still think this article should be deleted? Toadspike [Talk] 07:47, 16 December 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!} 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheida Mohammadi

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

Fails notability, never won anything in senior level. never even competed. based on the article she won a bronze in Gymnasiade which is far from being notable. Sports2021 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she is on a track that eventually might lead somewhere, but she has not arrived at notability yet, being a participant in children's sports events. Geschichte (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases and lists of event results do not provide significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG is met. There's no record she's ever competed at a World Taekwondo sanctioned event (youth or adult) and no indication of meeting WP:MANOTE. I looked up the 3 events where she won medals and she won a total of 2 fights--none of the events had more than 4 competitors so everyone got a medal. Youth and minor events do not show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 4 December 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. Just noting here that the previous AFD on this article subject was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo)

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri now created under another name by the same user to trick wikipedia. This is also clearly against WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that this was created by the same user as the one that created Hamidreza Sadri, could this be WP:G4 speedy deleted? Both claim to just be direct translations from Farsi Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the deleted version, and had to decline the G4 as this one has more content and more sources, so can't really be considered identical enough. I'm not commenting on whether this demonstrates any notability either, only that it appears (superficially) to be a more credible attempt at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to me the users decided wrongly about last AFD , because he has the notablity of sportpersons in Wikipedia and I Didn't tricks anyone I just couldn't put New AFD, however This article is only translated from the farsi Wikipedia . Hamidreza Sadri is holder of Silver medal Asian junior and Gold medal at military world games which both competitions are notable for Wikipedia and many other international tournaments and now he plays Azarbaijan national team and these days he injured but he will get back to competitions soon

*Timsar* (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "users decided wrongly"; everyone is free to make their arguments as they see fit, and the closer of the earlier AfD discussion certainly closed it correctly as reflecting consensus. You may not like the outcome, but you should not dismiss it as "wrong". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again misinformation here, he never won a gold at Military World Games, he probably won a medal in World Military Championship (a different competition with a lower level) even though even winning medal at World Military Games (which he never won) doesn't justify notability. this is clearly WP:COI, trying to promote someone. Sports2021 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 he never won? What do you mean exactly?! All the military world games organized by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) and Hamidreza Sadri won gold medal at it! Here you can find out! And he achieved the best technical player in This tournament! *Timsar* (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021and I'm not promote someone! He had farsi and Azarbaijani wiki I only translated it to English wiki. *Timsar* (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 I checked your actions many times on many articles Like this one! Please check Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point *Timsar* (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Military Games and World Military Championships are two different things. both of are not notable in wikipedia standards. but at least World Military Games has some level of importance because it's a multisport event. someone who never won a major senior World or continental medal (probably never even passed the first round) and never qualified for the Olympics fails Wikipedia:NSPORT. Sports2021 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I think International Military Sports Council is notable too! They have article in wiki! *Timsar* (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 a sport person When is notable that plays for International tournaments in order to achieve topic or medal not mentioned to Olympics or ... Whi *Timsar* (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has really changed in the six weeks since the article was previously deleted. The coverage is still insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he has no accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE or show he is a top 10 world athlete (a criteria used in sports such as boxing and MMA). World Taekowndo shows he has never won a fight (or even a round) at any international tournament they recognize. Success at minor or youth events does not show English WP notability, nor does the fact he has an article at any other wiki. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE you can just search him in Persian "حمیدرضا صدری (تکواندو)" and if you are looking for all the events where he fights in ; you can just click here *Timsar* (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at taekwondodata.com and a number of other sources. He simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Different wikis have different notability criteria and he doesn't meet any of the ones on the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the content in farsi and English wiki are same, how you come that they have different notablity criteria?! It seems you didn't check wright, anyway All his honors mentioned in his article in 3 languages, All his honors are mentioned in many sources in several languages *Timsar* (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the Wikipedia's rules in all languages are getting update of English wiki! So they have not different rules with each other. And Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo) article is only a translation of the orginal ones in farsi. And he is qualified enough for have an article He is champions in world military championships and Silver medal of Asian championship 2017. So if these tournaments are not notable whay they have article in Wikipedia? I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the corporation

*Timsar* (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice that the page creator is now globally blocked. Sports2021 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they a sockpuppet and, if so, could this be WP:G5 deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and apparently he used sockpuppets in another wikipedia not sure if that counts in English wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that matters, socking is socking. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The medals won don't seem notable enough for an article. This is the only coverage I could find [15], this would seem to fail notability requirements and a lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samudra Gupta (poet)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A single source sited couldn't help in establishing notability. Nothing to be found upon searching through Edward Betts. Garudam ^Talk! 22:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Poetry, Bangladesh, and India. Garudam ^Talk! 22:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its Bengali-language page bn:সমুদ্র গুপ্ত (কবি) has three sources. One of them is significant which is "Samsad Bangla Charitabhidhan", a biography encyclopedia. And the subject has reliable sources such as Amader Shomoy, Kaler Kantho, Daily Kalbela, Daily Azadi, Jaijaidin, Sahitya Barta, Daily Star (2) etc. So it is clear that it doesn’t fail WP:GNG. Mehedi Abedin 23:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder why the article is the subject to deletion discussion. It is created in 2008, in that time the Wikipedia guidelines were not broader and more specific like the present. If I am not wrong in this case we don't delete them because they were created before the more strict rules were passed. Could someone tell me if I get it right? Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should not be a reason. And no, this has nothing to do with the age of the article. You should go through WP:BEENHERE & WP:STONE. Garudam ^Talk! 00:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehedi Abedin: Garudam is correct, the current policies and guidelines always apply. No article is grandfathered in for having met the rules when it was created. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the Bengali-language biographical encyclopedia that Mehedi Abedin mentions above, Samudra Gupta has several paragraphs in the Bangla Academy Dictionary of Writers and an entry in Who's Who in Bangladesh Art Culture Literature (1901-1991). I've used the former and a couple of newspaper articles to expand the article slightly. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article somewhat, and Worldbruce has expanded it. The subject is a nationally recognized poet, and sources show that he meets WP:GNG. Offline sources would be more than online sources as he was most active before the internet age in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Daily Star and the Bangla Academy Dictionary of Writers are strong sources passing WP:GNG, with support from Two Circles. Apart from that provided references collectively offer robust pass to WP:SIGCOV going beyond trivial mentions. In short, the subject is noteworthy individual in the realm of Bangladeshi poetry.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - someone who speaks fluent Bengali (not me unfortunately) could easily add sources, and they have already done so. Scanlan (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think an appropriate level of WP:BEFORE was not done as there multiple sources (no included in the article) that supports the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:12, 9 December 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!} 23:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessKenya Group

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

This page was edited back in 2012 by the same user who created Invade Agro Limited, and who was blocked for promotional editing. Company does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring this article to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kenya. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails Wikipedia:NCORP Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: amazing that it's survived so long. Deb (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made a lot of edits to the page and improved on it a few years ago. The company is in existence and trades under the name Dimension Data East Africa. Deb and Themoonisacheese are you able to assist in improving the page? It would be great if we continued to collaborate Zotezangu (talk)13:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't need articles under both names - a redirect would do. Deb (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to assist in improving the page because i can't find source for any information about it, except for the business records already listed on the page. Business acquisitions do not create notability, so unless there is something notable about this business (that can also be sourced) i don't see how this meets NCORP. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 9 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woja Emmanuel

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

two concerns, 1st: Subjects notable only for one event (kidnapping) which covered by one sourced that he worked for, i.e., Eye Radio. 2nd: the main contributor to the article seems to be the person himself as they uploaded 3 different images of the topic of article while claiming they were theirs, see [Woja Emmanuel pictures at commons]. yet the editor did not delcar any conflict of interest, so this article may also falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography. Not to mention multiple instances of failed verification and the use of self-published articles. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article was rejected 4 times as a draft before the editor decided to move it to the main space regardless. Below is the rejection comments:

Self published articles shouldn't be used as reference. Also interviews are also not considered as reliable sources to approve. Add 3 reliable sources per WP:RS. Please see WP:THREE. Evident here
Articles published by the subject and his organizations, as well as interviews can not be used as sources for a BLP and should be removed. Currently it seems that the only claim to notability is being kidnapped, which means that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E and does not qualify for an entry on Wikipedia. At best this belongs in some list of kidnapped journalists in South Sudan, if such list exists. Evident here
Not enough coverage to establish notability. Evident here
Also possible WP:COI at least on photos. Evident here

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 9 December 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!} 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invade Agro Limited

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

Non-notable company. Sources seem insufficient to pass WP:NCOMPANY. COI issues are also somewhat evident, and author keeps removing maintenance templates for no reason. Page was previously deleted under WP:G11 but it was immediately recreated by the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rwanda, Tanzania, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but promo. Can't find anything that would establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and this page is for promotional and advertisement it seems. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom and other contributers. Purely promo. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing for me to add. Can see only promo, no RS in the refs as well. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:25, 9 December 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. It looks like the nominator is withdrawing their nomination by voting Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kym Illman

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

This photographer does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. I've actually come across Illman's YouTube channel before, but I'm just not seeing the sourcing to establish notability. The most solid source I found is this profile from Nine.com.au. I found some other sources like this and this this that quote Illman's social media posts and cover some of the associated drama, but to me this doesn't feel like significant coverage of Illman or his work. Most other sources I came across were passing mentions or just Illman's name in photo credits. I don't think we have enough coverage to meet GNG, but I'm open to discussion with other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Australia. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Motorsport, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was browsing the Wikipedia requested articles and saw Illman’s name. As I recognised him, and as I an interested by his work, I thought I should create his page. Whilst creating I did see significantly fewer credible sources than I would have wanted to. Although I do feel like I, or others, could very likely, with some digging around the internet, add some more information to the page that covers more of his life/work, I do agree with there being a lack of sources that establish his notability and would understand if this page is deleted. ThornlessCookieReal (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your understanding. I do think notability is borderline, and I'm open to keeping the page if other editors are able to dig up some better sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of November 29, the article has seen a large amount of revision and inclusion of more reliable sources than it was a few days ago when this AfD was opened. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was going to say almost exactly what Madeleine961 did. Sandcat555 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the recent expansion, I do agree to keep the article per WP:HEY. Thanks to Hack for the expansion and additional sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:58, 2 December 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!} 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Wanja Brune Olsen

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

Delete - based on my reading of WP:NTENNIS, I don't think that the subject meets the bar for notability, based on the various stats sites I came across, and the article in its current incarnation. There are several pages published by Tennis Norge that have more coverage, but this seems limited to the subject's participation in the national team fielded at the Fed Cup. That does not seem sufficient to me, but I would happily defer to WP:TENNIS. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Norway. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see notability per WP:NTENNIS. Astaire (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability.
Shrug02 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 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!} 06:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rogovë

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

Is WP:NOT, does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia article as it is not in-depth and neither are the sources. It has no information on the fighting during the battle, only giving a "basic layout" of the battle (e.x the casualties,date,result etc...).This battle also had its own article a couple of months ago but it got deleted, this current article is just an attempt to bring back the deleted one, however it does not meet wikipedias guidelines.(And also im not saying that the battle never happened, it just doesnt deserve its own article).Peja mapping (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacking WP:RS. Article creator seems to have created a number of pages that are not well-sourced. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:57, 2 December 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. No consensus to delete. There appears to be a consensus to refactor the article to better reflect the sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia

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

The whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Terrorism, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no originally research here nor MOS:TERRORIST violation. In fact, there are no resources in this article and barely any explanation besides "North Macedonia is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. It shares land borders with Kosovo to the northwest, Serbia to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west. Below is an incomplete list of terrorist incidents that occurred in North Macedonia" and a list of Wikipedia topics of attacks and conflicts. IdanST (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the originally researched part. There are no reliable sources that classify these incidents as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are listed in their respective Wikipedia articles, and from an initial review and checking some, they appear to be reliable. IdanST (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited those articles. Articles themselves are not considered reliable. List articles are also subject to WP:V, so citing sources is required on such articles too.

Even if we go by the articles, we'll see that on its respective article, the 2001 insurgency is not classified as a terrorist incident. Neither are the Vejce massacre, Kondovo crisis and the 2014 government attack (unresolved case), nor have I encountered sources who classify them as such. The attack at Gošince has been classified as such by the government but the case is unresolved. The Smilkovci Lake killings have also been classified as such by the government and some experts (before the convictions), and there were also terrorism convictions. The Kumanovo clashes have also been classified as such by the government and there were terrorism convictions. All three occurred when there were ethnic tensions and a political crisis, so their status is controversial. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's WP:V violation. I've added RS to all listed attacks. However, I don't know how 2001 insurgency in Macedonia is related to this list. IdanST (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - at least three of these incidents were carried out by or claimed by the National Liberation Army. I think it's useful to group them and show how the situation has evolved or progressed over time and how other instances of ethnic-driven violence have occurred but it might be helpful to be specific in the claims of the list. Other countries (Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, etc.) have much long lists but are not always linked to an article. There are many ways to rework this but I think it's worth keeping around. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any title(s) in mind? My view has not changed so far but a name change can be considered. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenMacky1 - a comparable article might be List of attacks in Lebanon (broad, less of a POV statement than "terrorist") with a similar description. Alternatively, narrowing the article's focus so that it's only attacks carried out by the NLA ('List of terrorist attacks linked to the NLA'), but that would probably be a short list...so perhaps it could be expanded beyond North Macedonia. Many ways to skin this cat, although at some point there's a question of if it's just easier to scrap the article and start fresh with a clear purpose. Kazamzam (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will support renaming it as "List of attacks in North Macedonia". The other title will make the topic more narrow, plus all of the attacks after 2001 were not committed by NLA but by groups claiming to be the NLA. The organization was disbanded. There are other bombings and attacks that can be listed here too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:55, 2 December 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Silva

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

Delete - I could not find decent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing that added flesh to the bones of various listings and stats sites. I therefore submit that the subject does not meet WP:NSPORTS, and I note that the article has been unsourced and out-of-date for some time. It is possible that better sources exist in Portuguese that I haven't found, in which case I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Also could not find any sources. The article itself only essentially says "He's a footballer (team, position)" Mrfoogles (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about former footballer who appears to have primarily played as a semi-pro (not at the highest levels of Brazilian football). His biggest achievement was probably being a squad member in Remo's 2007 Campeonato Paraense-winning side (although I found this match preview which strongly suggests he was only a fringe player during the competition). He played one season in the 2009 Campeonato Paulista A1 with Noroeste, but only appeared in 11 matches as the club finished dead last, and he briefly appeared in the 2011 Campeonato Brasileiro Serie D as Operário failed to advance beyond the initial group phase. Overall, a non-notable career, and I can't find anything that suggests WP:GNG could be met. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Fails every measure of notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:23, 9 December 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!} 01:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Grill Flame

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. The references in this article are largely unacceptable as Non-neutral PR releases. The only others offered and found relate to some kind of legal issues between franchisees and the company, but a proper article cannot be based on only that. I also have concerned around possible UPE due to spammy marketing jargon being introduced and reintroduced into this article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References made to Legal trouble can't stand for notability of the article as it is about the person who had invested or maybe owner. also PR news articles included.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:00, 10 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FOK!

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

Unsourced for over 10 years. An article about a Dutch forum website. Fails WP:NWEB. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Site was, in earlier days of the modern internet, one of the if not the biggest Dutch-language forum, fairly sure I remember it winning the Dutch website-of-the-year in some category or another (probably news or entertainment?) prize at one point, for a while was fairly commonly mentioned and quoted in Dutch news media, had a couple pretty big scandals, and pretty near enough everyone around here in the Netherlands had at least heard of it for one or several of the previous reasons. So it quite probably is notable. That said, it's looking to be pretty hard to prove with actual sigcov in independent sources. Not sure if it's because online searching seems to be getting worse with the year, or because coverage around the time of its peak popularity--late 00s/early 10s, I think--simply no longer is there. Going to look further to see if I can't find some proper sourcing, but not super hopeful based on my initial search. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, did my further searching, and believe I've found enough to justify keeping the article:

Found a source for it winning Dutch website of the year 2010 in News & Information: https://web.archive.org/web/20101129155153/http://www.websitevanhetjaar.nl/tmp_results.php;
SIGCOV in this article in NRC back in 2000, this on netkwesties.nl from 2007 and this in the Volkskrant in 2011.
Possible SIGCOV in Jos Gabriëls, Ineke Huysman, Ton van Kalmthout, Ronald Sluijter (2014) In vriendschap en vertrouwen: Cultuurhistorische essays over confidentialiteit, Uitgeverij Verloren, ISBN 9789087044787, but could only preview some snippets. What little I could see was about the same incident covered here in de Volkskrant (not the same piece as the Volkskrant piece linked above), but possibly somewhat more in-depth/with more relevant background (would need full access to say for sure, though)
Fairly wide coverage in Dutch media of a different incident involving FOK! (when one of the columnists of Fok! wrote a "satirical" column calling for violence against a Dutch politician), but for the most part this is coverage of the incident with only passing mentions of FOK! itself, so not going to list those here since they don't convey much if any notability. An exception is this piece in Parool, which is at least beyond passing mention (but still heavily within the specific context of the incident and not much else)

Suspect there's more somewhere, but it's taking quite some digging because various older newspaper articles don't seem to be indexed by google, searching for fok.nl crowds the results with subpages of the website, and searching for fok! results in a lot of animal welfare articles because that's the Dutch verb for breeding. (sigh) Still, I think the above are just about enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. AddWittyNameHere 16:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough in-depth coverage in sources per above. I see regular mentions by journalistic sources over the past 25 years through a LexisNexis search, such as NRC. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 December 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!} 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Torres (footballer, born 1992)

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

A very brief career with no significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC. All I can find are trivial mentions like this and this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2,000 light years away from meeting the notability criteria. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not to mention this is one of the common birth names in the Spanish-speaking world that namesakes may be found, even by searching in conjugation with the person's clubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insignificant coverage for a Wikipedia article. C 679 13:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added to the article what I could find about him, it is clearly not enough. No reliable source found, apparently this person exists but it is not enough to have an article. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:17, 3 December 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. Article sourcing has improved through the period of nomination to where there is now a consensus to Keep. The AFD nominator is also encouraged to consult specific notability guidelines like WP:NACTOR which can help explain Keep arguments for some types of articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bennett

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

The only secondary source in the article is just a passing mention, and I cannot find any other secondary sources for this person. Somatochlora (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Somatochlora (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor character actor in Canada, seems to have passed away (or there are obituaries for a similarly named individual). I don't see much coverage now in the article we can use and I can't bring up anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Road to Avonlea (Gemini Awards nomination) and Desire (Genie Awards nomination) and Looking for Miracles (Daytime Emmy nomination) are good for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was any sort of BEFORE taken by anyone? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, the nom describes their WP:BEFORE in the nomination statement. Please don't make this kind of comment. You may find something others overlooked, but that doesn't mean they never tried. -- asilvering (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time here so possibly I'm missing something, but I don't see how this addresses my point? The notability requirement is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's maybe surprising that nobody has ever provided that coverage for this person given the roles they've played, but nevertheless that seems to be the case, I cannot find a reliable source for *any* piece of biographical information whatsoever about this person except what roles they've played and what band they were in. The closest is this one tiny bit here I've found: https://web.archive.org/web/20090220002635/https://nowtoronto.com/music/story.cfm?content=166274 but this is really about the band more than the person.

The reason I came here is I'm trying to compile and reference the list of people from London, Ontario, and discovered that this page is basically referenced only to social media posts, and also contains a bunch of unreferenced material from who knows where. And I was then was unable to find any other reference for any of the information. Somatochlora (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"except what roles they've played and what band they were in". He is an actor and a musician. Those are the important things. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but that information is coming from the TV show credits and similar sources, which do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't understand why you believe that this person meets that criteria? (I'll add that I don't believe there is any reliable source to support that the actor and the musician are even the same person! They clearly are from looking at photos but I don't see where anyone has actually published that information)Somatochlora (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes NACTOR through roles in Looking for Miracles, Cube Zero, Just Business, Grindstone Road, Hacker, Road to Avonlea, Desire, Nilus the Sandman: The Boy Who Dreamed Christmas, By Way of the Stars, Free Willy, An Avonlea Christmas, Life in a Day, Z-Squad, Wild Kratts and Detentionaire. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a valid notability claim, but simply listing the roles he's had isn't what gets him over the bar. Notability as an actor doesn't vest in the list of roles that he's had, it vests in the quality of the reliable sourcing about him and his performances that can be shown to support the article with. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need improvement, but it's completely missing his actual strongest notability claims — namely, the fact that he's had Emmy Award, Genie Award and Gemini Award nominations for his work in film and television, which are the kind of top-level national acting awards that automatically nail permanent notability to the wall even if there are problems with the existing sourcing. And for a person whose strongest notability claims came 20 to 30 years ago, improved sourcing for that will have to be retrieved from archive databases like ProQuest and newspapers.com, and would not be expected to be sitting out on the google. Ergo, I've stripped all the bad referencing, and added several much better citations and the awards. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the legwork and yes clearly a keep with those resources!Somatochlora (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep with the recommended changes and article improvements. The process worked here. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:19, 7 December 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!} 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Rodríguez (Mexican footballer)

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

Had a brief career in the second tier of Mexico but searches yield nothing that could even come close to counting towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having a blast going through all the non-notable Mexican players. You forgot to mention that the article creator is blocked indefinitely, having disrupted Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how many more of these stubs we'd have to deal with if they were not blocked when they were. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insignificant coverage for a Wikipedia article. C 679 13:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 3 December 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!} 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonh González

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

Played 44 mins of professional football but no other claim to notability. All I can find is trivial stuff like El Orbe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, when I come around to assessing the sources he is far from meeting the notability criteria. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – insignificant coverage for a Wikipedia article. C 679 13:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 3 December 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!} 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion on 2023 edition. Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, India, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a sporting event (or election, etc) happened does not mean it needs a standalone article for detailed results without discussion or substantive sources with additional coverage. If all you can do is copy data from the official website, then just link to that website with a summary in the main article because we are not the place to paste statistics by themselves. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a non notable sporting event.115.97.231.229 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and 4 sources are just stats with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:15, 4 December 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!} 01:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2023 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, also Specific sport competition at 2023 National game is not a standard of notability, such can be included in main article along with with all disciples.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:03, 10 December 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!} 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 86 it for going against WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not a repository of detailed results from every thinkable sports competition. Geschichte (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notabily under WP:SNG or WP:GNG.115.97.231.229 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and 2 Sources are just stats and no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:10, 4 December 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. This is a re-close after discovering I made an error in attributing extended confirmed to editors. This matters, because of the socking and fairly obvious canvassing, I decided to weight extended confirmed editors more heavily. There is a consensus among those editors that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability, while those supporting keeping, with one exception, suggest the case for keeping is weak or present arguments that get less weighting. This is insufficient to overcome the weight of editors supporting deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Original close
The result was no consensus. Due to the socking and fairly transparent off-wiki canvassing, I weighted extended confirmed editors more heavily. Even with this weighting I cannot find a consensus here and relisting seems unlikely to be productive.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Despite extensive attempts to find sources the only notable sources seem to be a flurry of mentions stemming from a Kotaku Odds and Ends article [16] or a controversy involving Troy Baker and Voiceverse. All other sources about 15.ai are either self-published or unreliable. [17] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weighing in as non-editor here— I'm surprised to see this page up for deletion? 15.ai was certainly a big deal for some online communities (TF2 and MLP are the ones I'm aware of), and a quick search on YouTube makes it clear that it's notable. Deleting this page would just make information about 15 less accessible to the public than it already is. 2backslashes (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)— 2backslashes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock Strike[reply]

Comment: I apologise if my involvement in this article voids my comment, but I believe it worth mentioning that it seems that the creator of 15[dot]ai is requesting for news coverage regarding the site's creation, meaning that Wikipedia:Notability criteria could fluctuate during this discussion. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solicited coverage by the creator will not be independent. It will not count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the author of the coverage is performing their own research(i.e not regurgitating the creator's words) and they are not paid for covering the work, I do not see how the resulting coverage would be considered non-independent. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator writes Also, if anyone can get me in contact with reputable journalists or news outlets so I can write down the detailed behind-the-scenes of http://15.ai, that would be much appreciated. - So the creator is seeking to place content they have written, presumably in the form of a press release. That is not independent. News articles predicated on an approach from the creator, and regurgitating material written by the creator are certainly not independent. Hypothetical questions beyond that would have to wait for any actual coverage, and nothing can be said about hypothetical analysis that has not yet been done. There is no indication here that any such analysis is being done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded reason for deletion. Saddam Hussein's comings and goings have been absent from the news cycle for far longer than 15.ai has, and yet you don't delete his articles. You cannot say "but he's dead" as an excuse, 15.ai is also dead. 2A0A:EF40:20F:9B01:6B36:9722:1966:3F1E (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Personal attack/incivility struck[reply]

Strong keep. I'm very surprised to see it being nominated for deletion for a second time even though it was previously decided that the subject met GNG. The subject has been in the news cycle for more than one event. The first time was when it was first unveiled to the public in early 2020 (The Batch). The second time was when it went extremely viral on Twitter (Kotaku, Game Informer, etc. covers this). The third time was when a company Troy Baker partnered with plagiarized 15.ai's work and went viral on Twitter again. (NME, Eurogamer, etc. cover this) Thus, the conditions for WP:BLP1E are not met. WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. I copied over the table from the last deletion nomination.

Table updated by GregariousMadness on December 11, 2024 GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[[18]]	While Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS, it's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News"	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact	? Unknown
[[19]]	Game Informer is in WP:VG/RS	Still debated; according to Brocade River Poems' analysis below, Game Informer uses 161 words to describe 15.ai, which passes WP:100W, which is not formal WP policy.	? Unknown
[[20]]	PC Gamer is in WP:VG/RS	Still debated; according to Brocade River Poems' analysis below, Game Informer uses 123 words to describe 15.ai, which passes WP:100W, which is not formal WP policy.	? Unknown
[[21]]	Rock, Paper, Shotgun is in WP:VG/RS	Still debated; according to Brocade River Poems' analysis below, Game Informer uses 101 words to describe 15.ai, which passes WP:100W, which is not formal WP policy.	? Unknown
[[22]]	Den Fami Nico Gamer is in WP:VG/RS	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact without mentioning Kotaku	✔ Yes
[[23]]	AUTOMATON is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada. Here is the Japanese Wikipedia page: [24]	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact without mentioning Kotaku	✔ Yes
[[25]]	United Daily News is one of Taiwan's largest traditional news groups, alongside The China Times	Provides in-depth coverage without referencing Kotaku, discussing the subject's functionality and impact	✔ Yes
[[26]]	Towards Data Science is a reputable ML/AI publication (extremely popular online with over 800K combined followers) used as a source in technical Wikipedia articles (such as decision tree, image compression, and long short-term memory), appears in Google News, and author has published in IEEE [27]. The source also does not mention Kotaku.	Provides detailed technical coverage and analysis without referencing Kotaku	✔ Yes
[[28]]	GamerSky is a major Chinese gaming news site founded in 2003 with its own zh.wiki article	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact	✔ Yes
[[29]]	Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region. While there is no previous consensus on the reliability of Stevivor, the author (Steve Wright) is still writing for Stevivor ([30]) and has hundreds of reviews on OpenCritic ([31]), so there's no concern for pay for play. According to his Linkedin [32], he is also an editor at Epic Games	The first three paragraphs talk about the controversy, particularly what 15.ai is and its involvement. The first three paragraphs add up to exactly 110 words, which passes WP:100W, and then goes on to discuss the viral Twitter interaction.	? Unknown
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}}.

Aside from these, there are plenty of tech blog posts about the subject, including some from well-known players in the voice AI space. They might not be as reliable as the sources above, but they still indicate notability in the voice AI space. (see ElevenLabs: [33], Speechify: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete: Sources 1 and 2 are brief stories about this app, that you can use to make a game character say silly/whatever you want things... Rest aren't in RS. "Look at this cool app we found!" seems to be the crux of their reviews. Then we get down into the weeds over NFT sillyness and other items involving this site. I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There hasn't even been any substantial sourcing since the last AfD in January 2023 that's come up.... "15 alternatives to this site" don't show n notability, reads more as clickbait and important coverage. None of the sources published/used for sourcing since the last AfD show any improvement over the sourcing we found last time 'round. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why would that matter? Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." I made a source assessment table that provides coverage beyond the two sources listed in the OP. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was notable last time and this doesn't improve it. Agree to disagree I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are numerous problems with this source assesment table, including a misapplication of the Kotaku source. Again, the VGRS says News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance emphasis added. Notably, whenever the Kotaku source comes up everyone who mentions VGRS conveniently cuts off the second half of it. Kotaku's article about 15.ai isn't tagged as News, it's tagged as "Odds and Ends", which is precisely the sort of "blog/geeky posts" that editors are cautioned about as you can see here. [39]. Meanwhile, of the other sources listed the following sources all reference the Kotaku article [40][41][42][43][44]. All of the news sources, including the one Japanese site and Spanish that doesn't explicitly mention Kotaku, are from a range of dates between January 17, 2021 to January 19, 2021, and after the Kotaku article. Despite insistence by multiple editors that 15.ai is of ground breaking importance to the realm of AI Voice Synthesis, there hasn't been a single reliable, independently published source provided to substantiate the claim. Other websites which are being used use as Elevenlabs and Speechify appear to have simply cannibalized the Wikipedia article for 15.ai for their website, with Speechify using wordage verbatim from the old Wikipedia article, and making minor changes. Per WP:REFLOOP Wikipedia cannot use sources which heavily relied upon Wikipedia. You were also told that Andrew Ng's The Batch or other self-published sources do not contribute to GNG. [45], yet you have checkmarked it as doing so. Even as a WP:EXPERTSPS editors are still cautioned if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Likewise, NME is considered reliable within its expertise, which is music. [46]. You are ignoring WP:RSCONTEXT and using a consensus that NME was reliable for BLP information about a musician as a sign that it's reliable for an article about Artificial Intelligence. Moreover, the NME Source is about the controversy that was a flashpan incident, it does not represent WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability emphasis added. There is no demonstrably WP:SIGCOV.

AfD Abuse

Regarding that notability isn't temporary, I note here that the previous AfD for this article was interfered with [47][48][49][50] by a bevy of WP:SPA. The article itself was heavily edited by someone who continues, as of last week, to abuse multiple accounts for the sake of editing 15.ai [51][52]. With the revelation of the persistent multiple account abuse, the votes of HackerKnownAs and SirGallanthThe4th in the original AfD brings the number of improper votes to keep up to at least 6 [53]. Discounting the suspicious votes and the votes from the confirmed sock accounts, there is no real clear consensus on the notability of 15.ai, and that factored in my decision to bring the article to AfD again. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for the sake of clarity, I'll provide a handy-dandy table as well for evaluating the sources and for why I nominated this article as failing GNG.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[[54]]		Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS: "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable", however WP:VG/RS cautions against "Geeky/Blog" posts. Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section is not their News section.	The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject.	✘ No
[[55]]		Game Informer is in WP:VG/RS	The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article.	✘ No
[[56]]		PC Gamer is in WP:VG/RS	The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article.	✘ No
[[57]]		Rock, Paper, Shotgun is in WP:VG/RS	The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article.	✘ No
[[58]]		Den Fami Nico Gamer' is in WP:VG/RS	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact	✔ Yes
[[59]]		AUTOMATON was considered reliable by what was probably only a drive-by/sock [60]	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact	? Unknown
[[61]]	The article indicates some sort of direct contact with the creator as it says "In an email to The Batch, the coder declined to disclose details about how the model works but said it was inspired by the 2019 paper that pioneered transfer learning for text-to-speech models"	The Batch is the newsletter personally written by Andrew Ng, one of the most prominent authors in modern AI: [62]. Per WP:ExpertSPS this source is reliable.	The mention of 15.ai is a small blurb in an otherwise long newsletter. The newsletter has a section on 15.ai, and per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Even in the section for 15.ai, half of the words are not about 15.ai directly, but the technology behind it.	✘ No
[[63]]		NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which was specifically said to be music in the discussion.[64]	The source discussed the creator of 15.ai's response, but says very little about the webapp itself. The entire coverage of the webapp is "Voiceverse was found to have been using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character, but it was actually taken from 15.ai – a non-commercial text-to-speech service." and "It was found that log files show that Voiceverse used the service for an AI-powered voice to be sold as an NFT".	✘ No
[65]]		Eurogamer is in WP:VG/RS	The source discussed the creator of 15.ai's response, but says very little about the webapp itself. The entire coverage of the webapp is "Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service.Unlike Voiceverse NFT, 15.ai is free to use and play around with. Using just 15 seconds of voice samples from various fictional characters, its tech lets you type in text and get, say, David Tennant's Tenth Doctor or Glados from Portal to read out what you wrote."	✘ No
[[66]]		LaPS4 is unknown, I cannot find a single RSN discussion about it, and usage on different Wiki's is not indicative of suitability for inclusion on ENWiki. However, LaPS4 has no identifiable editorial board and a survey of 10+ recent articles show them all written by Jose Villalobos. Prior to 2018, there seems to have been more staff [67] but is gone by June 2018 [68] and it was confirmed in March of 2018 that the ownership had changed [69]. While the new owners had an editorial board, they no longer actually own LaPS4.com, and there is no indication of an editorial board in 2021[70]. As for its usage on the Spanish Wikipedia, one [71] usage for PS2 Sales itself cites Wikipedia. Notably, LaPS4's article was deleted on the SpanishWiki for being irrelevant and promotional [72]	The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact	? Unknown
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}}.

Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Repeating what was stated last time it was nommed for deletion. Per User:Elmidae, "However, basic notability is not in question - these four mainstream game magazine articles [73][74][75][76] already form a sufficient backbone for that." Kotaku is only quickly mentioned in each one and the coverage is way more than a "flurry of mentions".

Otherwise, the app was one of the biggest happenings in speech synthesis in the early 2020s and took social media by storm as it proved that voice cloning with a small amount of data was possible. Personally speaking, it's so important enough that if former competitors of 15.ai (11labs and Speechify) are still saying the app was one of the biggest things to happen to AI voice cloning years after it went offline, it must be true. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC) — Tacotron2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why did the OP mark me as an SPA? That I made few or no edits outside 15.ai is false. My edits have been about AI speech, which is a broad topic of interest. Per WP:SPATG my vote should never have been tagged. Tacotron2 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I said in the other thread, I found this deletion page because there's a giant, hard to miss red box at the top of the 15.ai page that says it's going to be deleted. Like the last time I found the deletion page. My name is literally the name of the algorithm that inspired the 15.ai TTS, of course I'm going to argue against its deletion. Tacotron2 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general test for SPA:

A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas.

You have answered your own question:

My name is literally the name of the algorithm that inspired the 15.ai TTSS

Malvern House Preparatory School

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

Does not pass WP:N. Unsourced or cited to passing mentions, or cited to unreliable / affiliated sources. WP:SIGCOV requires reliable, independent sources that address the subject in direct detail. At best, this could be redirected to an article about the author's life. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The fictional school means this shows up in a lot of sources. But a fictional school would indeed be better redirected to the writer or novels (as Linbury Court redirects to Jennings, for instance). But I think if we had a piece about Wodehouse that then talked in any depth about his childhood at the real school (and thus as the inspiration for the fictional one) then this would be a keep. Is there any such treatment? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sirfurboy, we could split the article, with real-world parts going to a new Kearsney, Kent#Education section, and the title being redirected there. The fictional parts can be merged to P. G. Wodehouse locations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to P. G. Wodehouse locations per WhatamIdoing. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV outside of plot details. Any brief mentions can be included at more than one article, if relevant. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 5 December 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. Substantial sources have been located to support notability claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drones Club

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

Does not pass WP:N. A lot of this is unsourced, or cited to passing mentions, or cited to unreliable / fan / affiliated sources. WP:SIGCOV requires reliable, independent sources that address the subject in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No BEFORE noted. No source analysis of the existing non-primary sources, a couple of which appear notable. Covered in:
Humble, N. (2011). From Holmes to the Drones: Fantasies of Men without Women in the Masculine Middlebrow. In: Macdonald, K. (eds) The Masculine Middlebrow, 1880–1950. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316577_6.

Edwards, O. D. (1976). Stories for a Self‐Made Merchant. New Blackfriars, 57(669), 72–80. doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.1976.tb02248.x

Cannadine, D. (2019). Boyhood memories. TLS. Times Literary Supplement, (6070), 34. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A631896212/AONE?u=anon~39cd8c32&sid=googleScholar&xid=b2e0ce6d

Some of these are paywalled, but the clearly demonstrate that the Drones Club is discussed in studies of Wodehouse on sex and gender roles. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In the book In Search of Blandings by N.T.P. Murphy (Penguin Books, 1986), there is a chapter on the Drones Club called "London Clubs — Which was the Drones?" analyzing the relationship between the fictional Drones Club and real gentlemen's clubs around the turn of the 20th century. Toughpigs (talk) 15:14, 8 December 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. Ordinarily, I opt for ATD when appropriate but it sounds like article content has already been mentioned at several other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Holland's Lip Sync Battle performance of "Umbrella"

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

Per WP:NOPAGE. There is little needed context that is provided by creating a separate article for a single performance of an actor lipsyncing. The performance is worthy of a couple sentences at Tom Holland and Lip Sync Battle. Astaire (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, and Popular culture. Astaire (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the song article (or any other locations mention in nom if people feel inclined.) Worth mentioning somewhere due to the coverage, but absolutely should not have been split out to its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, except that the performance is already mentioned briefly at Tom Holland, Lip Sync Battle, and Umbrella (song). I don't think there's anything or anywhere left to merge. Astaire (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The song article has a single, basic sentence about it. There's certainly more to say about it beyond "it happened". Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be a line or two in his article, or in an article about the TV show, I don't think it needs its own article. This isn't a "Freddy Mercury at BandAide" level of performance. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wordy title that does not have a proper merge target (since it is already mentioned several places) and would make a poor redirect. This is tabloid material, not an enduring, historical performance. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:59, 6 December 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. asilvering (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Gay Pub

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

As the article creator, I am not sure that this has the required level of sustained coverage. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feels a bit funny to vote against the author of the article who nominated their own article for AfD, but just quickly pulling up a Google news] search for it finds quite a bit of new coverage not currently in the article, including on history and expansion to Philadelphia, some sources that could be included: [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]. And then there also seems to be a recent hate-crime indicent against it with some vandalism - [125], [126]. Seems enough WP:SIGCOV to pass notability and much of those sources could probably be included into the article, if I find a free moment I might even do it myself as I love article rescue. Raladic (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Raladic (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and Raladic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree with above. I found the WaPo story and news about expansion to Philly while searching, and even though some coverage is not completely independent (interviews etc.) I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP overall. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 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!} 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilovan Kovli

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

Contested PROD, which was removed by a user with only 15 edits (and who's likely a sock of the author). Reliable sources are clearly lacking, and notability still needs to be established for this subject. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Iran, and Iraq. – The Grid (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, does not show notability --VViking_TalkEdits 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed in my PROD nomination. The editor is shooting themselves in the foot if they really are socking to remove a PROD tag (they themselves are allowed to do that) and their other contributions reek of WP:UPE. Passenger pigeon (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for an aspiring artist. Is not in any permanent collections, has not made a life changing contribution to the arts scene, or any other artistic notability requirements we look at. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Even if we could verify his identity, it’s far too soon. Also, claims to have been a student at Columbia University but never exhibited in New York? Even stranger: there’s an AI-generated LinkedIn profile that talks about his activities at Harvard under Columbia, a personal website that doesn’t open, and an Instagram account with 9 followers. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ai generated Linkedin profiles are a new one for me... Not surprising I guess, the way things work now. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify any of the things he is said to have accomplished; this would be A7able if it weren't for the fabricated claims of notability. Passenger pigeon (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:21, 7 December 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!} 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital break

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

This page is a contested draftification, so taking to AfD for review per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The article appears to focus on a recent law that was passed in France – my search for "digital break" and "digital pause" on Google News mostly turns up coverage of the French law like the sources already cited. Although there are a number of sources, my instinct is that there isn't enough sustained coverage to warrant a standalone article. I think it would make more sense to redirect to Mobile phone use in schools, where debates about restricting mobile phone use in classrooms are already covered comprehensively. Creating a "digital break" section might make sense if it is a widely used phrase in different countries. I'm open to discussion on what the best course of action would be. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and France. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:25, 3 December 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!} 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playmox

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

No sources contribute to Playmox passing the general notability guideline, and a search shows no sources other than ones that don't pass the GNG. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found that wasn't a passing mention or linked to the service itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with above comments Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:12, 3 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushrod, Indiana

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

This is another "what did the WPA text say?" case, as Baker cites it for a founding date in spite of ample evidence that this is in fact another rail spot. What older topos and aerials show is that this was once the east end of a small yard; I found one person cited as yardmaster there. And all the relevant hits indicate this, with lots of irrelevant surname hits. There's no town here now and now place of it to have been, as the topos show nothing but trackwork and a couple of buildings. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find a news article from 1959 that refers to it as a "town": [127], but it's more about the man it's named for than the place itself. A 1946 article in the Linton Daily Citizen has a little more information, but just describes it as a rail point and not a town: [128]. Undecided about whether this counts as WP:SIGCOV. As much as I hate geographic permastubs like this one, we have a little bit more (albeit conflicting) information than is typical for these "GNIS gives this name to this point" type articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from a 1958 aerial that there was no town there; except for the Quonset hut (which might have been a different building at the same spot) there's just a structure withing the wye of the tracks. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 9 December 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 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Nicholls

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable producer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Previous AFD in 2010 ended in Keep but editors there provided no proof of significant coverage either. Sources provided and found in Google are mere mentions of subject, while the series produced are certainly notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is not eligible for a Soft Deletion outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any articles about this producer, the ones used in the article are more about programs this individual was involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 17 December 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. But not as a biography, rather, as an article about the notable legal case, Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others. Sandstein 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Bailey

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

This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The entire article is basically about WP:ONEEVENT which itself doesn't have an article as it's questionable if the event itself is itself would pass WP:EVENTCRIT (enduring significance seems questionable). The person doesn't appear otherwise notable on its own. Suggest deletion as the only other part in this article are actually just about LGB Alliance, not the person, so they are mere sidenotes that don't justify the BLP article. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGB Alliance - the WP:BLP1E argument is, and will remain, persuasive unless it can be demonstrated that Bailey has some other noteworthy accomplishment. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename to "Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others" and rework it into an article about that case, which is independently notable, and which the court of appeal will hear it again next year I believe.Void if removed (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E says :We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

1. There is biographical information in this article which is properly sourced.

2. Bailey has been mentioned in the media other than in connection with the discrimination case.

3. The event is significant, and her role in it was significant. If she wins her current appeal, this will be even more significant.

Alternatively, rename per Void if removed.Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL because she has not, as of now, won her appeal - if she wins her appeal then its still a single event - the appeal of her ongoing litigation against Stonewall being part of said ongoing litigation - and, as for her media mentions, are any of them not about her anti-trans activism with LGBA or the lawsuit? Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the extract from WP:BLP1E which I quoted above: for WP:BLP1E to apply, then all 3 conditions have to be met. Since the legal case is significant, and her role in it is also (obviously) significant, this case does not come under WP:BLP1E. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the legal case is highly questionable being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case is clearly significant. There have been several successful employment claims since the Forstater and Bailey rulings where Bailey has been cited (eg. Meade vs Westminster City Council), as it goes a little beyond Forstater in providing examples of what is to be considered protected speech. It also establishes and protects slightly wider beliefs than Forstater.

It also, most significantly IMO, wanders into the area of inducement to discriminate under s111 of the EA, which Bailey lost at the EAT, but will now be heard by the court of appeal on the grounds that:

The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.

So this will set significant precedent.

So it has been subject to significant coverage in popular mainstream media, is cited in other cases which have also received significant coverage, and although we cannot use a WP:CRYSTALBALL, when it reaches the court of appeal, whatever the outcome it will also establish precedent in an important area of equality law. Void if removed (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This will set significant precedent" is WP:CRYSTAL though. You cannot know that ahead of the fact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't convinced when I first saw this but, after thinking about it, I think I do agree that something should be done. It doesn't feel like BLP1E, because the 1E has dragged on for far too long, but it probably is 1E nonetheless. Of the two options, I think making an article about the case might have a slight edge over merging it to the LGBA article. It isn't the LGBA's case, at least not directly, and handling it as a case encourages us to cover it like we would other cases, with a focus on the claims, laws and judgements rather than personalities, sideshows and fundraising. It might help to attract other editors who have experience covering legal matters. The case is quite complicated. I wasn't even aware that there was a further appeal. I thought that the last unsuccessful one was the end of it. Most people who have heard about it have heard very one-sided reporting. (I dare say that a fair few people must be confused as to why she was/is appealing a case that she had spent ages telling everybody that she had "won".) It would be good to detail it correctly so that readers can understand what the various parts of the case are, which bit she won and which bits she lost. I don't outright oppose the merge idea but renaming the article and bringing it up to standard as a legal article seems the better option. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal is mentioned on her website [129], but as far as I am aware, it has not yet been mentioned in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think turning the article into a rendition of the case is the best compromise, it is the most significant ruling in this area alongside Forstater v CGDE, and although it's not been covered in the media, the grounds on which the court of appeal have agreed to hear it are significant. Void if removed (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much weight is being given to speculation about what might happen in the appeal case here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, speculation about a potential future violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, either the event is already right now significant and if the article was renamed to focus on the court case, the case needs to pass WP:EVENTCRIT, in particular Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes.... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

So aside from suggestion the article be moved to be about the case, the editors arguing for it, also need to actually provide evidence that it passes the eventcrit. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legal case that has been covered by many of the UK's largest newspapers isn't a routine news event, and no crimes have been alleged here. Astaire (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I said it already is notable, with reasons (extensive ongoing media coverage and analysis, and citations in other cases). Once it is ruled on in the court of appeal it will be even more notable. Deleting the article of an already notable case that is certain to become more notable is unjustifiable. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:crystaball. There is no certainty on future increases in notability, please stop pretending there is. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said it already is notable

This is the important part of what I said. I don't need a crystal ball. Its already notable and there's no grounds to delete it. Void if removed (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people does not confer notability to a routine court case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing WP:CRYSTALBALL about a case which is going to the Court of Appeal. The result will be legally notable, whichever way it goes. A case which goes to the Court of Appeal is, by definition, not a ‘routine case’. And there is no ‘strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people’ - the case is not ‘about trans people’ it is about discrimination. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case, per Sweet6970. The case has been widely covered in UK press, with The Guardian calling it a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights [130]. Oppose merge or delete. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the article is primarily about the case. The case is not "significant" enough for BLP1E to not apply; there is some dispute regarding whether an article about the case would be deleted. There is no evidence of other coverage of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGB Alliance; she's only notable for activism as a part of that. The court case, which alleged that she was discriminated against for her position in that group, is downstream of that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case. The case has been widely covered in UK press and Bailey is cited as a campaigner for lesbian women's rights in bringing her case. It was her as much as the case which made it notable, I think. Melissa Highton (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely. I don't think I would be opposed to renaming it as has been suggested but the article is clearly significant in terms of litigation that involves Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers and without this article, the twists and turns of this somewhat complex and long-running case would be lost. Zeno27 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and rename to focus on the legal case per those above. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:19, 8 December 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!} 23:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Foufas

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted in 2010, failed PROD in 2021. Sources exist, as added in that PROD of 2021, but article is not nearly notable enough for inclusion. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and United Kingdom. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably have enough for a basic article. This Independent article is the best [131], then some coverage [132] and [133]. Seems to be well-known to the viewing public. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oaktree b. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source eval for the ones by Oaktree. More input from community is appreciated since the article was PROD'd and AFD'd earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to Oaktree b for digging up those sources, but I don't think there's enough for notability - he came out live on air, posted something controversial on Twitter and once had a bad experience with British Airways. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Astaire (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 December 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!} 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beehunter, Indiana

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

This is plainly a rail point, formerly a crossover/junction and more recently a rather odd pair of junctions. The only road in the area actually swerves to avoid the spot, and the only building is in the middle of the junction; I would gather it was once the "tower" but it's impossible to tell. I did find some explicit reference to it as a rail station/junction but other references are to the marsh or to a potential archaeological site, or to local mining activity, npne of which are not in this immediate vicinity. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suprisingly detailed article from 1970 talks about the history of this rail spot: [134], but states clearly that it "was never a city, nor a town, nor was it ever the home of more than one family." I will update the article accordingly. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find a free pdf or transcript of this paper, since sources are always better when they're accessible. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: [135]. It continues on a second page, but this proves my point. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article isn't sufficient to elevate a rail point to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I’m not sure I agree with nominator’s reasoning, as it seems to be skirting the edges of WP:OR territory. That said, I am also struggling to see how a single article from 1970 qualifies the junction for notability, particularly after glancing at the criteria set-forth by WP:NTRAINSTATION. MWFwiki (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Comment- I Found This Article, That Says:

"The community of Beehunter was located two miles south of Bushrod in Washington Township.  Beehunter took its name from a local stream, Beehunter Creek.  Bees came to feed on the marsh flowers, which were abundant in the section of the county.  Businessmen came from great distances to reap the honey and the more valuable honeycomb.  The village consisted of a railroad depot, a store, a restaurant, a hotel, and a grain elevator."

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a location that wasn't exactly a town...above info seems to indicate it meets the minimums. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 December 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!} 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy LaGrone

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

The article has no actual independent sources, and there is not much beyond routine coverage of this artist. He seems to be more notable for being a Tuskegee airman than an artist. (Update: that appears to be a different Roy LaGrone). Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not to be confused with the artist Roy E. LaGrone (Q112123883) ~~who needs a page (which I will start after dinner).~~ This Roy LaGrone fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:35, 2 December 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. The nominator has changed their opinion to Keep which is an unofficial way of withdrawing their nomination. As there are no arguments for Delete, I'm closing this as a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keikan Ri

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

Redirect to Boxing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Welterweight Keep, see comment below. - no significant coverage in any sources apart from listings type sites, and the corresponding jawiki is similarly unsourced. Subject finished 17th in class in the 1936 Olympics. I therefore submit that the article does not meet WP:NSPORT in its own right, but a redirect to the competition page is appropriate. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing, Japan, and Korea. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some sources and it looks like he had a career after the Olympics that was, at minimum, interesting. I think with more research we could have a good article here. ScribblingTiresias (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ScribblingTiresias you had accidentally switched one of the sources in the reference to the Meiji Shrine Games, so I altered that. I am not averse to keeping the article, but I would not say that the sources represent WP:SIGCOV - they are all stats / listings sources apart from the journal article (nice find!), which only gives him a somewhat passing mention. I am a bit surprised that there appears to be nothing on kowiki, though my Korean is by no means good enough to be absolutely certain about that. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I did find this on kowiki - looks like he might have won another national competition. But no article in his own right as far as I can see. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the olympics Biography source is correct he won the Japanese national title to be chosen to represent Japan at the games. The different names are throwing my searches off a bit, but it’s hard to believe that an athlete who won a national title, and represented their country at the Olympics doesn’t have enough sources SOMEWHERE in whatever language to establish notability - and since the standard is “sources exist” not “sources are currently cited in the article as written”… And given how far pre-internet he was, finding sources which somehow got digitised is always going to be tricky. I don’t have a strong enough opinion to vote one way or the other, but it seems a shame to delete such an interesting character / piece of history for no really strong reason like obvious false information / lack of achievement…

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the kowiki page has another printed source. It is all in Korean, but available on archive.org. From memory and a rather dodgy Google Translate, it's "90 years of Korean sport", or some such. That is the reference for the national competition that he won, so in aggregate I would now say that there are just about sufficient sources, especially for a shortish article, so I am more inclined to keep now. And I agree Absurdum4242 that it would be rather a pity to lose the article at this stage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:58, 8 December 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 Best of Luck Nikki. Props to Icecreamchuger for looking for and citing sources, but rough consensus is that they provide only superficial coverage and/or are not reliable (including IMDb and anything user-generated). Sandstein 18:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Nair

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

Unsourced biography of a child actor, created in 2015 as a redirect to the sitcom Best of Luck Nikki, but which has had several unsourced article creation attempts made since then, which have been WP:BLAR'd each time. Nair had a named minor role in that series, and in the film Bhoot and Friends, so I would have expected to find more coverage of him in RS, but in English and Hindi (आकाश नायर) I can find only passing mentions. The rest is the usual social media, Fandom, etc. I propose to restore the redirect. Wikishovel (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Wikishovel (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Best of Luck Nikki: I am unable to find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage or even minimal details about the subject. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG, and since it is not listed in the cast of any notable film, it also fails to meet WP:NACTOR. I suggest redirecting this article as it was before and protecting it indefinitely to only allow edits from autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed users. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested seems fine, I don't see much outside of the show about this performer. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia, and I’m still learning how everything works. From what I’ve gathered, an article needs to have coverage from reliable sources to be considered notable. I’ve found a few sources that mention Akash Nair, and I think they could be enough to meet the notability guidelines, but I’m open to feedback and understand if it doesn't meet the criteria.
Sources:
1. IMDb Profile - This profile shows Akash Nair’s acting career, including his role in Best of Luck Nikki and Bhoot and Friends.
2. MouthShut Review - There are some user reviews of Best of Luck Nikki that talk about Akash’s role as Sunny Singh.
3. TellyChakkar Article - This article talks about the cast of Best of Luck Nikki and mentions Akash Nair as part of the team.
4. Bollywood Hungama Article - This site has a short overview of Akash’s career, including his roles in TV and films.
5. NETTV4V Article - This site has a short overview of Akash’s career, including his roles in TV and films.
Personal Life Segment:

I also included a bit about Akash Nair’s personal life from his LinkedIn profile to show that he’s done work outside of acting too, like in editing and media. I thought this might help paint a fuller picture of who he is.

LinkedIn Profile

I know these sources might not be very long or detailed, but I believe they show that Akash Nair has made a significant impact with his roles. Icecreamchuger (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 22:07, 4 December 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. Sandstein 18:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gornto

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. Subject's page has false accomplishments listed throughout (actual 2012 US National Championship results here and 2013 here). Subject has never been named to a US Senior or Junior national team and was not a member of the 2014 Pacific Rim team (results here). Aside from being a gymnast at Michigan, which is not inherently notable, the entire profile is fake. GauchoDude (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The name seems to come up in relation to a tennis player in Florida... Unlikely to still be in university a decade later. Unremarkable college athlete, I don't see notability and there is no sourcing to back up the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, North Carolina, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. His University of Michigan bio page highlights that he barely competed. I suspect a conflict of interest given the inflation of his accomplishments and this is the only page the creator has ever worked on. -Riley1012 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Patrick Guglielmelli

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

Delete - I could find no significant coverage whatsoever in any source, reliable or otherwise. Plenty of listings and stats sites, all of which are fairly scanty. Career highlight seems to have been one season at Ascoli when they were a Serie A club, during which the subject did not appear to have played any matches. I therefore submit that WP:NSPORT is not met, and note that the article has been practically unsourced since its inception. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Player with participation only in the Italian Serie C2, and without sources that establish WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search engine results pull up listings without significant coverage and (weirdly enough) a pronunciation video. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference on article says he played 78 games in his whole career, all in Serie C2, which to my understanding is the fourth tier. No appearances when on professional books at Ascoli and Perugia. The reference is from a page called "Tutto Calciatori", meaning "Everything Footballers", by far a better project for someone of this limited notability (databases, not encylopedias). Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:09, 6 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

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

The article consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research --Altenmann >talk 16:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT of original research, but this is a potentially notable subject. The phrase gets a lot of coverage in research about the Book of Common Prayer and its language (eg [136]). I'm planning out an article called "Language in the Book of Common Prayer" (it will be largely framed by an OUP book of the same name by Stella Brook and OUP's Shakespeare's Common Prayers by Daniel Swift). This might be a good redirect to that article when the time comes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of all the idioms currently up for AfD, this one has a long history in English language culture. It's even got itself into philosophy of literature[137], as well as of course featuring in discussions such as [138] (a blog, but a blog by acknowledged experts, Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman). It goes way beyond dictionary-matter, and is socially significant enough to land firmly in an encyclopedia. If we're not careful, we'll have to bud out a sub-article list or disambig on usage of the phrase for books, academic articles, films, poems and music. Elemimele (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elemimele, a simple reading of the article, and a WP:BEFORE search. Bearian (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this discussion such as academic journals, and books imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears to be approaching a consensus that this is a notable topic, but that the current article is filled with original research. A little more participation might make clear whether this is the case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with this nominator's other items recently at AfD, this is a topic that is certainly notable and not remotely a WP:DICDEF or WP:OR, as shown by sources out there in the world, which is the criterion. While the article looks poorly cited, it actually cites the King James Bible, Shakespeare, and the Prayer Book, somewhere between implicitly and explicitly (mainly without blue-numbered refs): but again, that isn't the AfD criterion. I'll have a go at tidying the article and citing it a bit better, as it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image, a section on the idiom's use in fiction, and a lot of citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Procyon117 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This archaic idiom is definitely encyclopedic and it's also notable. As for the referencing, Wikipedia allows the use of biblical sources so I don't see a problem there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would have voted delete per WP:TNT, but Chiswick Chap has massively improved the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 2 December 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. No consensus exists to delete at this time. No discussion of the sources has occurred in two relistings, and thus I do not believe a third relist is warranted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkTS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sourcing to show that the subject meets WP: GNG. The subject receives in-depth coverage in two papers, published by separate groups of authors at Chinese universities. These papers appeared in ASE 2024, meaning that they are peer-reviewed and thus credible. Here are the papers: [1] [2] I do think this article has several issues, but they can be fixed without deleting the article, so I am inclined to keep it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally linked to the same paper twice. Here is the link to the other paper. Sorry about that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~I couldn't find two independent sources satisfying GNG.~~ (updated) there's a few sources likely passing GNG, but it's weak. User:HyperAccelerated - ~~is that~~ are those sources independent? There's not wide coverage yet, may be WP:TOOSOON. Nothing against draftifying. Widefox; talk 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- do you have reason to believe they aren't? One paper is from a team of researchers at Southern University of Science and Technology and another from a team at Beihang University. There isn't anything in the Acknowledgement sections to indicate they got funding from Huawei (who developed ArkTS), and if there was substantial collaboration with Huawei I'd expect someone from Huawei to be on the author list. I suspect there's more coverage in Chinese, but I think that these papers are sufficient to establish notability anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected and updated my summary. Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two books, ^[1] is an introduction to the syntax of ArkTS, and ^[2] covers ArkTS on HarmonyOS 3.1. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ 刘玥; 张荣超 (2024-07-01). 鸿蒙原生应用开发：ArkTS语言快速上手 [Developing Native Applications on HarmonyOS: A Quick Start with ArkTS Language]. 人民邮电出版社. ISBN 9787115642509.
^ Way Lau. 鸿蒙HarmonyOS应用开发入门 [Getting Started with HarmonyOS Application Development]. Tsinghua University Press. ISBN 9787115642509.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a bit more discussion of the new sources before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 2 December 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 delete‎. G5'd. asilvering (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kishtwar encounter

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

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please look into bundling such AfDs together, next time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 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 delete‎. G5'd. asilvering (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bandipora attack

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

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 2 December 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!} 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this grouping of characteristics meets WP:LISTN and has received significant attention as a group. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the article, I find it relevant to the reader. Additional references will need to be added. ChuyCastañeda (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my rationale is same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan. Also, delete the other similar lists created by the same user: List of NJPW male wrestlers born outside Japan, List of WWE male wrestlers born outside the United States, List of WWE female wrestlers born outside the United States, and List of world champions in WWE born outside the United States. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while being a gaijin in Japan is notable (for example, Omega was the first gaijin to win the G1 Climax.), the list looks like a trivia for a Sporcle quizz. Sources are just Cagematch, no focusing on the article (World champions outside Japan). Also, the use of other criteria looks random. List of male wrestlers outside USA in WWE, Female world champions outside Japan in NJPW... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:32, 6 December 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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

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

I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [139] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [140], [141], [142], [143] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [144] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [145] and [146] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [147] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Akhnoor attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 2 December 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. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Botapathri ambush

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 December 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Baramulla attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 December 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ganderbal attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar grenade attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd typically recommend adding this to the respective List of terrorist incidents in [country] article and redirecting, but it's... Kashmir, so unsure of how well that would work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you please bundle AfDs using the same exact rationale next time? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently learned about it[148] and will follow the same procedure going forward. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 4 December 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Leisure Limited

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

It's not clear to me why this page exists or how or why it could ever be bought up to WP's standards.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the organisation's mission statement	It's the company's own marketing material	Lacks the objective overview required to meet the definition of significant	✘ No
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the company's website again	It's too close to the subject	Just a list. No prose.	✘ No
https://switchtheplay.com/news/switch-the-play-and-gll-national-news-release/	It says it's a press release	Press releases are put out by the organisation and are not subject to editorial oversight.	Lacks the critical insights and objectivity required for significant coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sportspro.com/insights/analysis/london-2012-olympics-venues-today-london-stadium-velodrome-aquatics-centre/	Appears to be published by a partner organisation	No discusson of the source's reliablity on RS	Article is about former Olympic venues, not Greenwich Leisure Limited	✘ No
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1097435/	Press release aggregation site.	Little to no editorial oversight.	Appears to discus the company's rebrand but not the actual company or its history.	✘ No
https://www.andrewbibby.com/socialenterprise/greenwich-leisure.html	Bibbly is a journalist for hire	Published to journalist website without editorial oversight.	~ Some depth of coverage but it's akin to a press release and clearly primary	✘ 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}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully object to this page being placed suggested for deletion. GLL is notable as one of the UK's larger social enterprises and also runs some of the venues that were used in the 2012 London Olympics, such as the London Aquatics Centre (which has its own Wikipedia page) and is also mentioned on the Zaha Hadid Wikipedia page. There are also quite a number of Olympic and Paralympic medal winners that were supported by GLL's Sport Foundation. I'd like to try and find some independent, impartial secondary sources so the GLL Wikipedia page could meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Could we take it off the list for the time being so I can suggest some changes and then reassess please? Leemann72 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The applicable guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, and it is also noted there is no indication of a WP:BEFORE search done by the nominator. A quick search on ProQuest indicates circa 419 hits for "Greenwich Leisure Limited". Further in-depth analysis would be needed to build an article, but there does seem to be coverage out there including this, in a long standing journal and written by the journal editor. The Guardian newspaper confirms that GLL is the biggest trust in the UK running sports facilities. All told - enough evidence to presume notability under NONPROFIT in my view - even if the article needs lots of work. ResonantDis_tortion 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have edited further and added more references to hopefully help improve the article. Leemann72 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel it meets Notability Requirements, but it is time to protect the page so only confirmed editors are able to edit the actual article and nonconfirmed editors and paid editors can only make edit requests on the talk page.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the Guardian sources it probably meets WP:GNG.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This and the mentioned Guardian article likely take us to reasonable notability. MWFwiki (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a recommendation to WP:SNOW.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:53, 13 December 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 Kimberella. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberellomorpha

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

Solza may just be a taphonomic variation of Kimberella, all others are from McMenamin and therefore are likely unfounded. Therefore, it’s a monotypic taxon. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kimberella, seems the grouping itself is accepted by some of researchers as looking on Google Scholar, but it is mostly monotypic. As I see it is not known when this grouping was established, probably need information for that. In the talk page article creator commented that they used ChatGPT to write the article, and current status is terrible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in full support of a merge. It seems to be an invention purely supported by McMenamin. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what it is not an McMenamin taxon,look it up although McMenamin does mention the order rarely , but McMenamin did not describe this order. 2010.1126/science.1206375 DOI 10.1126/science.1206375 Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you even properly link to the paper?[149] You are definitely new to editing and should learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, seeing from Scholar, this paper appears to be the earliest mention of "Kimberellomorpha", but there is no discussion of what kind of taxonomic group it is, so this seems to be just a loose grouping like "roachoid" without clear scientific classification. So simply mentioning Kimberella article will suffice for this. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no reason for Wikipedia to support this dubious bit of taxonomy. As for ChatGPT's editing and writing abilities, don't throw away your fountain pens any time soon, editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t use ChatGPT. Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unneeded "1." shown in synonyms in that article makes it the doubt that is copied from something outputted by ChatGPT. In any case, this article has a number of problems, including unnecessary spaces, spaces that aren't where they should be, and incorrect use of bold and italics. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“ChatGPT says the next subdivision is Kimberellida” Hmm, it sure sounds like you’re at least using ChatGPT to help write some of the article… IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment The idea of including this taxon was already rejected in Kimberella by Donald Albury and IC1101-Capinatator, who called it a "dubious taxon". And an earlier conclusion was that work by MAS McMenamin had to be verified by secondary references, before inclusion in Wikipedia. However this term Kimberallmorph/s/a seems to have been used by others, but not as a properly defined taxon. I would suggest that we just have the term as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Naudin

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

WP:1E, WP:GNG, reads like a CV or like it's been edited by someone closely associated with the subject (theses men? no mention of prison sentence which is arguably the most important thing about him?). Toffeenix (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it’s 2024, and by now everyone knows that we are not a LinkedIn knockoff. Bearian (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTRESUME. Aside from 2016-17, nothing of note. Other than that, only other mention of name is this, which is of a different person. Procyon117 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant coverage of this person I could find is from his implication in the so called Air Cocaine Scandal, and subsequent legal problems. See these: [150], [151] and [152].However, I don't think that is enough to meet notability standards. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Italy and Georgia

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

Not a notable rivalry or pairing Fram (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sports, Rugby union, Georgia (country), and Italy. Fram (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, which is what this article is at the moment. Even so, a rivalry article doesn't appear to have any significant coverage, but I haven't looked too deep into it yet. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence of a notable rivalry here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But at least it doesn't attempt to call it "a rivalry" in the title... Geschichte (talk) 07:10, 7 December 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. If anyone wishes to merge the content somewhere, ping me to undelete/draftify/userfy the page. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic settlement units in Brno

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

This recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have to say this is largely incomprehensible without a map. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are usually by county, state or country, so this could be made into a list of places (or statistical or administrative units) in the South Moravian Region or there could be separate pages for each district, including Brno-City District. Peter James (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:10, 16 December 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. Some dispute between nominator and the keep !voters. Not really enough discussants to call it a quorum even after two relistings. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Białas

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the topic meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).
I did a quick search and found this and this. (Two articles by Dziennik Polski, titled "Kamil Białas znów stanął na podium" and "Łyżwiarze nie mogą się rozwijać bez startów".) There's also a YouTube interview, here.
The Polish website says "Sorry, you have been blocked", so I don't think I should bother to read and search further. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media platforms are user-generated and should never be provided as references to articles. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dziennik Polski is a newspaper.
Or are talking about YouTube? If it is an official account of a respected media brand or journalist, then it can be used. (As any other documentary or reportage.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about YouTube. Even if the source comes from an official account of a media brand, social media can't be used anywhere as they are user-generated sites, thus generally unreliable per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:SELFPUB. Social media as references also don't demonstrate the article's notability. Otherwise, I thought we only used reliable secondary sources... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the pages you are linking?
· WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is completely unrelated to this discussion.
· WP:SELFPUB actually says the opposite of what you are saying: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information [about themselves]". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I don't understand why are are attacking me. :-) When I posted my first comment on this page, I didn't see the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamil Białas) where you voted "weak keep" and showed exactly the same sources I found. You should better say something to the nominator. Who nominated this article twice with exactly the same rationale. I don't know about the English Wikipedia, but on some other Wikipedias (in some other languages, like Russian, for example) it is explicitly forbidden to nominate an article again for the same reason. (It is done as a measure against those who are obsessed and would otherwise nominate the same article again and again even after they have been told it can stay. They do it in hope that their opponents will get bored or will simply not notice a new nomination.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject meets WP:SPORTCRIT with multiple pieces of SIGCOV presented from reliable sources, which the nominator fails to address in any capacity. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 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 Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Content remains in case any editor wants to Merge any of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is clearly not ready for mainspace but a new user has now move-warred to keep it in mainspace from draft.

Sourcing in the article is inadequate for a BLP and are mostly primary sources. Better to continue to incubate in draft, if not delete outright per the last AfD's consensus. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Canada. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last version of the article by the creator stated he was born in Kerala before another user changed it to Bihar without adding a source on the matter.[153] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!I was the new user that "move-warred" to keep this article in mainspace. This article is based on the article for Escott Reid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escott_Reid, however it contains more sources.

All sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).

Beyond the article,

I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the only thing to change since the last AfD is something that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a ~~murder~~ merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be amenable to a merge to Canada-India diplomatic row. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom as there is no appropriate coverage to warranty an entry especially for a BLP and the information is already included in Canada-India diplomatic row FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine; I don't believe there is any content worth merging that isn't already at the target. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 23 December 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. Sandstein 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Cave

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

Links in ref's are broken, and all the info is sourced from the one referenced book. That book list many, many caves, and inclusion does not make this one notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See [154] Page 18 and [155] page 276: "a site of major archaeological significance". The cave contained mammoth bones, implements, Neolithic ware and bronze rings from 600 BC. Or possibly redirect to Gorham's Cave. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second is a clear passing mention, first has some merit. The mere presence of bones doesn't make something notable, and this is passing converage.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion with Gorham's Cave. If they are the same, redirect. Otherwise, first ref and existing refs is enough to keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - I turned this one over and over, but the description in the first article is WP:SIGCOV. The second possibly less so, since it's in the correspondence section of the RE Journal, albeit from an expert. Confusion over the name of the topic (the correspondence says it's now called Gorham's Cave, but that's a different article) weakens this even more, but its seems likely there's been archaeological research there which would mean further academic coverage, so WP:NEXIST applies. FOARP (talk) 20:35, 5 December 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too small for a whole article. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Cinema of Estonia until it is expanded. The references added to the article show it passes WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. Could use with some expansion though. ExRat (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cinema of Estonia: The sources provided to "pass WP:NLIST" in my eyes are far from that, and are in fact WP:ROUTINE. Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania (Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147 is a paragraph giving phone numbers, email addresses and addresses of some cinemas, with no meaningful analysis or commentary on the set (7 words!) or even claim of exhaustivity. I don't have access to the other source identified, but the same author three years prior wrote a guide book for Tallinn (note the later book was for Estonia as a whole) Thomson, C. (2004). Tallinn (Footprint), p.177 which is similarly not discussing cinemas in Estonia as a set (or in Tallinn). There is a very brief recap of cinema in Estonia, then a paragraph explicitly claiming to only list the main 3 locations and one arthouse cinema, with a fair share of the paragraph being used for the cinemas' names, address, phone number and location on the map provided with the book. If the content in her later book is significantly different, I feel the onus is on the people claiming it meets NLIST to explain how so at this point.
Other "List of X in (Country)" articles have been kept when they are useful to help with navigating pages which pass GNG on their own (e.g., List of golf courses in Canada) but generally only when they need to be separated from the main topic due to length. Cinema of Estonia is not at that point, and having a short list at some point in the article of notable cinemas would be relevant (I see that the article is already illustrated by a photo of an Estonian cinema!). Shazback (talk) 01:33, 27 November 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, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NLIST and not useful as a navigational aid, since there's only one bluelink. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cinema of Estonia. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable, however, it's severely incomplete and in need of expansion. Multiple blue links can added over time with their respective articles added. et:Eesti kinode loend is the et-wiki version, which is a more complete list. We can template:Ill to link the ones not yet translated. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:26, 7 December 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 Gornje Kolibe. Consensus is against having an article, but not for deletion. It's up to editors what if anything they want to merge from the history. Sandstein 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles for Gornje Kolibe

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

This skirmish was a very small part of Operation Corridor 92, for which we already have a Good Article which doesn't even mention this event due to its very minor nature. The village of Gornje Kolibe is mentioned once in the second volume of the comprehensive CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans, "Balkan Battlegrounds", but only briefly in the context of Operation Corridor 92, and none of the detail of this fighting is even mentioned. Non-notable firefight, appears to have been created effectively as a memorial page to those who fought there. Events from 30 years ago in this war have been examined in considerable detail in academic standard publications, so I have deleted the various local/town/regional news portals, many of which are dubious and/or biased and have no real editorial process (and therefore not reliable), and what is left (cited) is pretty much nothing. One of numerous highly marginally notable articles recently created by a series of now blocked socks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the other (none news portal) sources I removed were writings of former VRS officers, including at least two whom were directly involved in Operation Corridor 92, so hardly independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Peacemaker67 would a possible WP:ATD be a selective merge to the the village of Gornje Kolibe? We have practically no content on the village and this would seem to be a pertinent event to the history of that village? Obviously any unverified content shouldn't be moved over.4meter4 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gornje Kolibe per 4meter4. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb The town doesn't currently mention the event. We can only redirect to articles where the topic is addressed; hence the need to make this a "selective merge". Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very limited material to selectively merge, but yes. I would also add a sentence to the Operation Corridor 92 article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gornje Kolibe or Operation Corridor 92 if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? If yes, what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to me, given this is about the fighting, the most obvious merge target is Operation Corridor 92 rather than the village article (although a mention of the fighting in the village article would be appropriate. Only a very small amount of the content is eligible to be merged, as it wouldn't be appropriate to merge uncited content to a Good Article, and the reliable sources barely mention this fighting in passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like a case very similar to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Smoluća (2nd nomination). As a very minor skirmish this may not warrant an own article and then may also be removed from the campaignbox. It may, as had been suggested in the case of Smoluća, be mentioned briefly in some broader article like, in this case, the one on Operation Corridor 92. We should beware, though, not to overburden those broader articles by including each and every fight over some local village as there must be hundreds of them. --Proofreader (talk) 19:52, 4 December 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. asilvering (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gursimran Kaur

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

A sad story, but has no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability (one local follow-up story after the initial wider range of news reports). Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad but there are several isolated industrial incidents such as this. She was not notable before her death and her death has not received sustained coverage or forced significant reform to be eligible for an entry. Mekomo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a notable article and well-cited and I agree with @Zachary Klaas This is a national and international story about work conditions leading to a burning death in an oven. QalasQalas (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's disturbing this is even being debated. Nation-wide story in Canada. Reported on by CNN. That's enough for notability. It's also hard for "significant reform" to be forced if Wikipedia erases its entry on said nation-wide and international story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Of India is following this as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/no-foul-play-in-death-of-gursimran-kaur-walmart-employee-found-in-oven-canadian-police/articleshow/115433459.cms - why do you suppose this story about an Indo-Canadian might have been of interest to people in India? Saying the story is not notable suggests certain groups of people are not notable for their interest in the story. (Trying to say that with as much assumption of good will as possible.)

People also picked up the story. https://people.com/walmart-employees-family-traumatized-after-body-mysteriously-found-in-walk-in-oven-8737147 Being in that magazine is usually considered a slam dunk for what's considered "notable". Why not in this case?

There's also an indication that South Asian immigrants in Canada continue to follow the story - a news story from two days ago says the family is retaining legal representation and that the Maritime Sikh Society is "deeply upset" by the recent police findings. https://desibuzzcanada.com/post/police-say-no-foul-play-suspected-in-indo-canadian-woman-who-died-in-walmart-oven

Comment I have removed three sources from the article. Two were unreliable or deprecated per WP:RSP. One was about a completely unrelated subject. I have not yet analyzed notability more generally. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes the event got coverage in Canada, it's basically an industrial accident. Other than passing away, there isn't much more to be said about the individual. The event isn't terribly notable either; workplace deaths are rare but not unheard of... Could be re-created if it's found to cause changes in labour/safety laws. I hate to use the ROUTINE, but this was just a non-notable person that passed away in a workplace incident. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, there were 220 deaths in the workplace, in Ontario, in 2022. [156]. Industrial accidents happen and most are not notable. This event happened in another province, but it's one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. An article would be justified if e.g. the tragedy led to workplace safety reforms, if it had broader effects for the Indian community in Canada, etc. - but not currently. Astaire (talk) 20:02, 2 December 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 Pandit Deendayal Energy University. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School of Petroleum Technology

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

University department and/or constitute college of Pandit Deendayal Energy University. Has been renamed to School of Energy Technology in line with the university's renaming since 2021. Not notable enough online nor offline for a separate article. CptViraj (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Gujarat. CptViraj (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandit Deendayal Energy University, which mentions it. There is nothing showing independent notability, per nom. The University page doesn't even link to this stub, which is only referred to in mainspace with circular redirects, so it is functionally an orphan. If I had found this, I would have considered a WP:BLAR to the university page, as it's school of Petroleum Management already redirects there, and it would be, presumably, uncontroversial. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfurboy's reasoning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 3 December 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupi

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Most sources also only link to the artist's own website or Apple Music~~ EDIT: PLEASE DELETE. JUST SAW I ALREADY NOMINATED THIS ONCE. --FMSky (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The above request was about an accidental repeat in the transclusion process, which has been fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Also note that the first deletion nomination was back in 2007 for a toy of the same name. The second and third (this one) are for the entertainer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many sources exist about this artist, such as here, here, here, here and here. The article itself cites many of these sources. Passes WP:MUSICBIO at least to me. Beachweak (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I voted "Weak Delete" in the last AfD about 18 months ago due to Gupi having some introductory media coverage though much of it was in the form of listcicles (e.g. one out of many new Pride musicians) or brief mentions in articles about someone else. Since then the situation for Gupi has improved a bit with some album reviews and feature stories on the Food House project, as found by the above voter. I still think some more truly dedicated coverage would help but there may be enough for a stub article. The current version is too dependent on unreliable sources but those can be removed through the editing process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 2 December 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!} 08:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef RPG

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

Referenced only two primary sources from YouTube and a web store. Before search did not present anything that makes this game notable for an entry here Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It got a substantive mention in Rock Paper Shotgun. While it got mentions in Softonic, and a preview in RPGFan, these mostly have a purely descriptive feel to them without much opinions. I think it falls short of the bar for actual critical analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Zxcvbnm. This is an early access game, and there are signs it could get more coverage. But for now, it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. I would support userfying if someone wanted to keep an eye on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up Above Records

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

nn music records label --Altenmann >talk 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 2 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Altruist

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. No wide release; page for Mick McCleery was successfully AfD'd in January 2019. Previously PROD'd by Another Believer but was dePROD'd on grounds of WP:NEXIST. Having done a search, I don't believe they do. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some local coverage, which is nice but not really the strongest possible source since local papers are more likely to cover local people. There's mention of it screening at a film festival in 2011 and winning an award, but it's not really a major film festival from what I can see so that's not really usable either. Finally, it looks like there are two critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm not sure how usable either really are. One of them doesn't seem to be running anymore, as when I click on the link on RT it takes me to a spam site. It's overall pretty weak sauce at best. This very technically meets notability guidelines by way of the film festivals and smattering of coverage, but in my opinion it also fails it pretty solidly at the same time. I would say that it would be good to identify what film festivals would qualify under NFILM, but that would be kind of hard to pin down. For example, one could argue that we only use notable film festivals - however that would exclude those screenings and mini-festivals held by very notable and major institutions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bitman, Terry (2004-11-02). "Not 'The Twilight Zone,' but a S. Jersey thriller". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03.
  The article notes: "Here's the chilling plot: There are terminally ill people who would like someone to end their suffering, and there are people who like the thrill of killing. Why not match them up?The story may sound like something out of the old Twilight Zone, but in fact it is from a low-budget independent film called The Altruist, shot in Camden County.It is the latest production of writer-producer Mick McCleery, 34, a full-time teacher at the Gloucester County Institute of Technology, who has been writing screenplays since he was a child. The Altruist—which McCleery calls a "dark thriller"—is scheduled to premiere tomorrow at the Ritz Sixteen in Voorhees."
2. Shryock, Bob (2004-11-02). "Teacher premiers new independent feature film". Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "County Institute of Technology (GCIT), will attend premiers of his new independent feature film, "The Altruist," twice in the next five days. That translates to two showings on two continents, from the Ritz 16 in Voorhees Wednesday to sold-out Clapham Picture House in London, England Sunday, 88 hours and 3,500 miles apart. ... The 104-minute film, which McCleery describes "a match-making service" for the country's 30,000 annual murders and 60,000 annual suicides, is a low-budget ($10,000 to $15,000) flick shot almost exclusively in South Jersey and largely in Deptford. Some cast members and technicians are Gloucester County products ..."
3. Longsdorf, Amy (2004-10-29). "Haddon Heights native's project makes it to big screen". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "From that notion sprung The Altruist, a drama about a Kevorkian Inc.-style business called Terminal Assist. For his cast, McCleery turned to actors he'd worked with before, including childhood pal and fellow Haddon Heights native John Innocenzo, Innocenzo's wife Bobbi Ashton, Mike McLaughlin, Nick Cammarano and a half-dozen of McCleery's fellow teachers from Gloucester County."
4. Ralph, Matthew (2004-11-11). "Friends' lives come together to create film" (pages 1 and 2). Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "When lifelong friends Mick McCleery and John Innocenzo spent a semester studying in London, neither dreamed they'd be returning to the city to premiere a film 14 years later. On Sunday, McCleery, 35, of Haddon Heights, who teaches full-time video production at Glouceste County Institute of Technology, and Innocenzo, who appeared in McCleery's first film in grade school, revisited the city they both spent a semester of college in to premiere McCleery's low-budget feature length film "The Altruist." While it was filmed exclusively in Gloucester and Camden counties, its star Billy Franks lives in London and arranged the screenin at the brick Clapham Picture House on a narrow side street in the southwest London village of Clapham."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Altruist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard - I really appreciate you finding these sources and I will add them to the article shortly. That being said, I don't believe that these suffice for WP:NFOE. The mentions are rather short and don't really review the film in full. If anything, I would argue that they support the notability of the director, whose page was previously deleted. Kazamzam (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am satisfied with the sources identified by Cunard and think they allow to build a decent article about an apparently sufficiently notable film. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:55, 6 December 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!} 07:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper All's Well Cave

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

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the merge target?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage for this in the Internet Archive - just this passing mention in a history of the siege. If anyone can find more information please ping me. FOARP (talk) 21:05, 5 December 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 Beverly Wilshire Homes Association. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Plotkin

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are either blank or passing mentions.No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. scope_creep^Talk 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The activist falls bellow GNG and WP:SIGCOV as she received single mentions in almost all sources reviewed, though a few behind paywall which could be assessed. The number of trivial mentions also fall short of WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial mentions only, lacking in-depth and significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beverly Wilshire Homes Association, as I suggested when I deprodded this one, as it seems her notability lies with this group. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a also a WP:BLP, and there is no sufficient secondary coverge to pass WP:SIGCOV which was the primary reason it was on the cat:nn list. All these references are passing mentions and not really about her. Any BLP needs high quality WP:SECONDARY source to establish notability, not passing mentions. It states it in the open line of the policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Even for a small merge, there must be something. scope_creep^Talk 07:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing significant to merge, anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She has already mentioned quite heavily already in that article. Plotkin seems to have been the president since the 1980's, so the name isn't going to be lost. Possibly a redirect and merge the last sentence since the rest seem to be mentioned already? I notice that sentence is detailed already in the destination article. In fact, the whole article is there. scope_creep^Talk 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any policy reason why we can't have a redirect for Plotkin to Beverly Wilshire Homes Association and use any distinct sources provided for Plotkin to improve the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association article. Basically that is what I meant by merge. Perhaps I should have said "slim merge" to indicate this more clearly. I think the only thing we are disagreeing on is whether to retain the redirect, and I see no policy reason not to. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any objection to a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beverly Wilshire Homes Association. As noted above, the subject - while lacking independent notability per WP:GNG - is already prominently referenced in that article. Sal2100 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Boys' High School

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

the article has no live references and has been lacking citations since 2016.

I could only find some facebook groups and UK charity webpage about the school. 1keyhole (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you could only find Facebook groups and a charity webpage, then you didn't click the {{find sources AFD}} links at the top of this AFD page. Also, the school changed names a few years ago, so you have to search again under the old name, e.g., this link to Google News, which will give you news articles saying things like MP Didmus Wekesa Barasa is an alumnus[157] and another saying who the school's (current? recent?) principal is.[158]. A building burned down.[159] It is officially designated as an extra county school (formerly, 'provincial'), which is an important thing in Kenya but not something that I'd expect an American to know about.[160] There are more, but I think this suffices to show that there nom's WP:BEFORE search was inadequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weakly) - The page needs cleanup of course, but that is outside the remit of AfD. The sourcing I have found is mostly news sources and writing articles from primary news reporting is problematic, and, indeed, such sources do not meet GNG, so there is an element of IAR about this !vote. However it is clear that it is a well established and somewhat prestigious school that generates sustained interest. There is enough information to significantly improve what we have, and to verify much detail. What is lacking is a good history of the school, but there is a systematic bias in Wikipedia towards schools in locales such as the US, where sourcing is more readily available online. Proceeding with caution from the news reporting is possible here. Note that in addition to the other names, multiple sources call the school St. Luke's Kimilili Boy's High School. E.g [161] and [162], although their YouTube channel favours St Luke's Boy's High School-Kimilili [163]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On November 27, InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs) rescued 3 sources in this article. If references in an article are broken, it is always a good idea to run InternetArchiveBot to try to rescue the broken links. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 December 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumarr and Vetr

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

Article cites five sources. Four of them are just different translations of the Edda (the primary source work that the two beings come from), which the article SYNTHs together into a loose historiography. The fifth is a dictionary that the article uses to translate the article title to "Summer and Winter". I can't access foreign-language sources, but I don't see anything that could reasonably count as SIGCOV in a secondary independent source, so... seems like a GNG fail to me as written. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. First of all, this article discusses two items, the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, which are themselves compilations of earlier traditional works. They are not at all the same sources. The dictionary, Orchard's, is a handbook, not a list of words and definitions. There's nothing even approaching WP:SYNTH on this article. Second, as with just about anything in the eddic corpus, there's a mountain of secondary and tertiary discussion about these figures. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging regulars in this area to comment, @Yngvadottir:, @Berig:, @Alarichall:, @Haukurth:, @Ingwina:, @Obenritter:. Feel free to ping others. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what you're saying is that the article is various recaps of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, cited to various translations of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda. There's only one sentence that isn't just story summary, at the bottom of the Poetic Edda section. Doesn't sound like "a mountain of secondary or tertiary discussion" to me. Are there any secondary sources that meaningfully discuss Sumarr and Vetr at length? If there are, I would love for the article to be expanded with useful content. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. We have a section discussing the historic record and then its scholastic reception, which is typical for accurate presentation of the Old Norse myth record, like in the handbooks of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow. This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit at a loss for words. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide plenty for you. Here are a few: Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent quite a bit of time improving the project, and I also tend to feel crappy on the occasion or two my article shows up at AfD. I'm sure you're proud of your content contributions as well, so I do understand if you're frustrated. I'm glad you've taken a look at your article and decided it could use some improvement, though! At least there's some good secondary discussion in there now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is pure primary source analysis. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is WP:OR and this article does not contain a single sentence of WP:OR. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single citation is to a primary source translation. That is purely OR. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seasons in the Literatures of the Medieval North, p. 39-42 seems to have quite a bit to say on those. Forecast - A Diary of the Lost Seasons, p. 79, is much shorter but seems non-trivial with its observation that Old Norse only recognized two seasons, sumarr and vetr, associated with life and death. Die Symbolik der Himmelsrichtungen, Jahreszeiten und Jahresfeste, p. 136, 155, has pretty similar content than both and falls inbetween lengthwise. With the limited preview there I don't quite get where the extended quotations(?) on the subject come from, though. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one seems like a good GNG-passing source. Anywhere we could find another one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leeky, look down. Králová, Kristýna (2020) Fast Goes the Fleeting Time: The Miscellaneous Concepts of Time in Different Old Norse Genres, 91–. There's probably more, but there's the second you requested. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Yngvadottir! Appreciate you pitching in to help find sources – this looks pretty good to me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article needs to make clear that the ancient Norse year was divided into two halves, vetr and sumarr, and that both are also found personified. We cite Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology (1996 English translation of his 1984 Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie—our article wording "In the late 1900s" is deceptively ambiguous) for his opinion that the personifications were literary. The article should be rebalanced, starting with the intro, to not present them as primarily mythological figures, although they are such in the Prose Edda and elsewhere (I'm not saying that should be removed from the article!). And it should definitely note that vetr is used for counting years—so many "winters" old, so many "winters" between events. From the summary we now have, Grimm was being silly. Ár is etymologically a "year" word but was used to refer to the year's harvest (and agricultural plenty in general). We are probably misrepresenting his position a bit; but the battle between winter and summer is a superannuated theory in Germanic mythology. Normally I would have rewritten the article a bit before responding here (thanks for the ping, bloodofox); however. I am typing this laboriously in a hospital (sorry for typos) without access to my books. Google Books won't show me Simek and I decided to leave checking Grimm for others. I did check Daranios' link to Harry Eilenstein's Die Symbolik der Himmelsrichtungen, Jahreszeiten und Jahresfeste (this is my search result, with p. 136 looking most likely). However, the snippets of text I can see and the publication information—volume 54 in the series Die Götter der Germanen, published on demand by Norderstedt—suggest to me that the book is too fringey to be citeable. And I doubt it has much of use to say since it's focussed on religious symbolism. This (Kristýna Králová, Fast Goes the Fleeting Time: The Miscellaneous Concepts of Time in Different Old Norse Genres, 2020, Münchner nordistische Studien; passage starts on p. 91) seems to me to be a good source for explaining the uses of the two words for the seasons, as well as suggesting that Snorri's personification is a later development. (And it's in English, and has a reference or two on the 4-fold division of the year being introduced with the Julian calendar.) I'm afraid I have to stop here and hope the trackpad hasn't destroyed this !vote (and the linguists may want to correct me). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems fine. The mythological figures are minor but the article relays what the primary sources say about them and has a bit of scholarly analysis as well. It all checks out and meets our requirements. Haukur (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can be improved for sure but that is not because it can't be. We already have so much we're working on getting up to scratch and we shouldn't throw all of this away just to have someone start it again. I can add a bit when I get the time but it seems completely sufficient to me to stand as it is as a page, even if it can be fleshed out more. --Ingwina (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the present + found sources establishing notability and the reasoning by Yngvadottir. Thanks for the detailed analysis and all the best for your health. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Berig (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. The article properly describes the situation from the primary sources, and supplements that with an analysis section. The topic is certainly of encyclopedic interest, and more remains to be done from the other sources available, but notability is not in doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sentiments echo those of both bloodofox and Yngvadottir. There really is no reason to outright eliminate this article. It could stand some work as already mentioned, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. --Obenritter (talk) 20:46, 4 December 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 Avengers: The Initiative. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers: The Initiative characters

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

Fails WP:NOTPLOT lacking any sources besides primary ones. A pure plot summary list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 December 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avengers: The Initiative - The central and major characters that appeared in the series are already listed and described on the main article. Overly specific plot information on minor characters really should not be included on a character list, and when that is cleaned out, there is no longer any reason for a split out article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorschacma. An unneeded split off the main article, but it has a valid target in a broader article that better covers this information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Split articles are not exempt from policies. If splitting would create a failing article, the answer is to clean up and trim, not split. Jontesta (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the characters' section at Avengers: The Initiative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorschacma. WP:AVOIDSPLIT applies when splitting off sections without WP:SIGCOV, but at least that means there's an obvious section to redirect to. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:10, 5 December 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 11:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks and Bus Company

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I noticed this was nominated over 10 years ago with a decision to keep. However those sources fail WP:SIRS as they are not in-depth. The criteria for companies are much more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 06:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Transportation, and Libya. Imcdc Contact 06:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and lacks inherent notability as per WP:ORGSIG. Beachweak (talk) 10:24, 2 December 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 06:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seonghwa

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER, and WP:BANDMEMBER showing lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources for individual notability other than passing mention for Ateez-related reportings and/or mentioned in conjuction with Ateez. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SnowKang (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage of solo career for now Evaders99 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 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. Sockpuppet nominator Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Gebhardt

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

Unnotable. A ton of bricks 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathangi Ajithkumar

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

This playback singer fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. Coverage is unreliable non-bylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources (example), trivial mentions (example), and/or tabloid coverage disallowed for notability per WP:SBST (example). Nothing qualifying turned up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. No evidence if any of subject's songs became a chart buster or made it on the national music chart or had certified gold or higher in the country. Fails WP:NMUSIC. RangersRus (talk) 01:06, 8 December 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 Tropical cyclone scales#Alternative scales. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Severity Index

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

This is a scale that has only been proposed and used by one private company to compete with the indexes that the National Weather Service uses. It is not significantly covered by the National Weather Service, any of its subsidiaries, nor any major, reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Additionally, the sources which are cited in providing information for the index have not been updated since 2008, and were created by the company that developed the scale. Since the subject of this article has such limited coverage and only sources from the developers of the scales are cited, I believe that this article should be deleted. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have also started a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_2#Template:Most_intense_landfalling_Atlantic_hurricanes_(HSI). ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 04:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tropical cyclone scales: I've searched Google Books, Google Scholars, and Google and have been unable to find significant coverage. But, it does appear to be regularly mentioned in reliable sources when listing recent attempts at finding better methods of hurricane classification. See:

Absent more thorough coverage Wikipedia should probably cover this scale similarly to how reliable sources do. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ change to Merge to Tropical cyclone scales#Alternative scales, Falls WP:GNG. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tropical cyclone scales#Alternative scales per above. Not opposed to just redirecting if the additional content to be merged in can only be supported by self-published sources. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tropical cyclone scales#Alternative scales where this is already mentioned. No real need to merge anything further, and if this does manage to catch on, it can be expanded there fresh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 4 December 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 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas, Indiana

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

Another rail point/post office elevated to a village by Baker. The facts on the ground and on maps aren't as ironclad on this one, but there is a lack of positive evidence beyond Baker's statement. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm pretty sceptical when the only evidence that this place was ever a community is the single word "village" used in a one-paragraph description. Particularly when no incorporation ever happened, to be platted means that plans for a town at the location were filed, but that does not mean those plans were ever necessarily realised. The fact that the two names for this place (Maxams, Douglas) were simply the name of the post master during their period strongly suggests that this was only ever a post office - that is, not a community, but a single building or store. If an ATD is needed a redirect/merge to Center Township, Gibson County, Indiana can be done, but the reality is the only verifiable information that can be merged there is the name of the post master, which is surely not WP:DUE. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable location, no information found, and there is nothing in the article to merge (except that there was a rural post office for 14 years...who cares.) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of National Premier Soccer League teams. ✗plicit 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Spirit

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

Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Alabama. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Svartner (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams: as above Demt1298 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 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 02:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browns Mill, Virginia

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

Insignificant locality in Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields only SEO junk and results for the eponymous road. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except passing mentions of a Browns Mill Junction; nothing suggesting this was a community. Whatever this was, it's been bulldozed under suburban sprawl, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about it in the present tense. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This history of mills in Fairfax County in DC describes the milling activities there. There was a general store next to the mill and the miller owned a large farm, but evidence of an actual community in the immediate vicinity is conspicuous by its absence. It's probably just a name conferred on the subdivision when the area suburbanized and hence transferred to the topo map. Choess (talk) 15:33, 3 December 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Hunt, Virginia

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

Unsourced article for an insignificant residential subdivision in Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields nothing aside from real estate websites and local Facebook group on Google and nothing useful at all from ["Colchester Hunt, Virginia" site:newspapers.com searching Newspapers.com].

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons, being that they are insignificant residential subdivisions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All three seem to be residential subdivisions with no existence as communities pre-suburbanization or significant coverage. I tried slightly looser newspapers.com searches without turning up anything further. Choess (talk) 06:09, 4 December 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 political parties in Namibia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action Democratic Movement Party (Namibia)

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

Non-notable political party. I was able to find very little independent sources online, and headlines like this aren't exactly promising. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/ redirect to List of political parties in Namibia which is currently missing this party. It's a registered party and should be included in that list, but that's about it. It opted out of the most recent election. May be notable at some point, but as of now there is no WP:SIGCOV. See [164], [165], 4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a possible Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Plooy

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

Declined prod. Based on a primary source. A search for sources yielded non-independent darts media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion, just based on DartsDatabase JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found a reliable source on this person, sourcing too weak SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is unnotable player, absolutely agree, no problem with deleting this one --DarthBob (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] 刘玥; 张荣超 (2024-07-01). 鸿蒙原生应用开发：ArkTS语言快速上手 [Developing Native Applications on HarmonyOS: A Quick Start with ArkTS Language]. 人民邮电出版社. ISBN 9787115642509.

[2] Way Lau. 鸿蒙HarmonyOS应用开发入门 [Getting Started with HarmonyOS Application Development]. Tsinghua University Press. ISBN 9787115642509.

[1]

[2]