Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 23	December 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2005 Danish Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Danish Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Denmark. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Danish Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 25 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!} 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No sources or in-depth coverage for over a decade since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Latvian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Latvian Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Latvia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Latvian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 25 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!} 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. No sources or in-depth coverage since creation and it has been over a decade for all articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2025 (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 Upstairs On the Square. Content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Catherine Deibel

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

A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe. A redirect to her restaurant, Upstairs On the Square, is an option. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect All the unsourced content in nonencyclopedic voice was written by her sister and the rest doesn't establish notability for a local small-businessperson. Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per above. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partial) to Upstairs On the Square, with reliable refs from bio.Djflem (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although it needs to be reverted to the "pre-sister" version. (Sister clearly wasn't a Wikipedian.) I say this because with a merge to the restaurant it would be hard to capture some of the content. There are a fair number of local sources that could be drawn on. I emphasize local though. A local article about taking on a position after the closing of the restaurant, here can fill in a few facts about her career. Her death was covered in at least 6 local publications, and she was considered something of a feminist icon; a hint of this in G-Books because I can't see most of it. This has an emphasis on her involvement with local classical music activities. The Cambridge Day obituary provides good information. The City of Cambridge issued a resolution of condolence (short but heartfelt). I also found information that isn't included in the Upstairs On the Square article, like that they hosted an intimate after-concert dinner for U2 (and I suppose high-level fans). I'll throw a few links into the talk page of that article. Lamona (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the coverage is local but the subject is considered notable in Boston. There are references in Proquest and newspapers.com with additional coverage. I’ll add some of them this week. Nnev66 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added references to the article. Note most are WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, with the exception of the Baskin interview and All Things Considered piece. While most are in Boston/Cambridge sources, this is not surprisingly since her notability originates from her restaurant and community service in Cambridge. One source is in the trade journal Nation's Restaurant News. Nnev66 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the sources added by Nnev66 in the last couple of days of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Upstairs On the Square. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:03, 26 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Székely

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another one who looks notable in Hungary. Found this [1] in Magyar Nemzet, This [2] [] in Nemzeti Sport. In Blikk newspaper there is is this [3] I've only looked at a few Hungarian papers so there may be a lot more. Any thoughts?Canary757 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above sources identified by Canary757. That Magyar Nemzet article is a brilliant example of sigcov (and even has other outlets reporting on parts of it). Further coverage can be found in Index.hu, M4sport.hu, 24.hu, further coverage in Index.hu, HVG.hu and Origo.hu. Trouble is that googling "Pal Székely" rarely returns any coverage because of Hungarian naming customs which put the name as "Székely Pal", but googling the latter or "Székely Penge" finds some very strong coverage indicating he's nationally notable in Hungary. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nemzet article has only a paragraph of coverage; the rest is interview quotes which do not count towards GNG as primary and non-independent. The first three other sources also appear to be just Q&A interviews. Can you find some non-interview coverage of him? JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the status of interviews; when I check GNG, the reference to secondary sources is that they need "at least one secondary source" (which in this situation would be the latter Index article) and then says sources "should" be secondary. Then when I check WP:PRIMARY it says "(depending on context) interviews", which links me to WP:Reliable_sources#News organizations, in which there is... nothing listed about the aforementioned interviews. Is the inference here that any sort of interview content, regardless of how widespread or what source it's in, is entirely worthless and bunk in determining notability? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus has been that secondary content from the interviewer, e.g. background on the interviewee prepared before the interview, can count towards GNG if it's SIGCOV, but anything coming from the interviewee (either directly in quotes or lightly paraphrased by the interviewer) is not independent or secondary. I'd say the Index article is verging on a routine recap (personally I would classify it as fully routine, as it's just briefly reporting his performance in one tournament). JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the clarification. Well, I'm finding it hard, owing to my lack of Hungarian (I'm presuming there may be more hidden mentions such as the "Székely Palnak" ones that wouldn't initially come up on search) to find further sources. I'll just hope that whoever closes this will note the various Hungarian national sporting outlets that've gone to the bother of interviewing the subject in detail; even if not counted in the rule-based notability check, it's at least some sort of background showing this isn't just some complete unnotable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:48, 19 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!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will give a more expanded response when I have more time but German website dartn.de [4] which has a nice bio about him describes him as one of the most famous players in Eastern Europe (via google translate).Canary757 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite his work, a search yields significant independent coverage and has encyclopedic support. Tgvarrt (talk) 23:01, 31 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 South African Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 South African Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to South African Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and South Africa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, South African Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Not understanding why the nom could've just done this instead of having these articles stuck for a week in limbo outside of airing grievances about tropical nations having figure skating competitions despite not being in a position to medal in the worlds/Olympics. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the rigamarole at AFD:2001–02 Swedish Figure Skating Championships, where I had tried to do just that, based on past precedence, and still got my ass handed to me and accused of trying to be "sneaky". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 25 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.

Frog Detective (disambiguation)

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

No topics with the exact title. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems there is more than one way to do a dab. Some like this one. Here's an example: Abu Hanifa (disambiguation). There are enough like this one, that I don't think it's likely to be deleted on style. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66: "Abu Hanifa" is a given name in that example, and given names are generally tolerated as partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since Frog Detective is currently a redirect. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frog Detective is a primary topic redirect to The Haunted Island, a Frog Detective Game. The disambiguation page is not a valid one, and is not required, because both other entries are WP:Partial title matches and are mentioned in the lead of the primary topic article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Unnecessary dab, violates several guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:44, 31 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!} 21:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - exactly same subject in different media. --Altenmann >talk 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cydoor

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @BryceM2001: could you explain what you mean when you say the subject fails WP:GNG? The following sources seem to me like they might establish notability: [5] [6] [7] --Richard Yin (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to lack of participation. User:BryceM2001, as the nominator, please respond to the question asked of you here. You didn't provide much of a deletion rationale for this article or show that a BEFORE had been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant coverage: routine detection announcements only. --Altenmann >talk 00:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing coverage of the adware more detailed than brief paragraphs, e.g. [8], [9]. There are a few brief articles of the company itself in trade publications such as Adweek, also not enough for notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Whizkin (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2025 (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. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Pokémon

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

This article falls afoul of multiple different rationales and guidelines, which I'll go over now.

-The article's scope is unclear. It's titled "Gameplay of Pokémon", but is primarily discussing Pokémon battling. Additionally, it is only covering the gameplay of the main series of Pokémon video games, and not the gameplay of any game that diverges from that basic gameplay style. I've already merged some of this content to Pokémon (video game series), and while it needs work, this content really only pertains to that article and not to the franchise as a whole, making a spin-out unnecessary.

- This article fails WP:VGSCOPE. It goes into excessive detail about various game mechanics, and is a gross violation of guideline 7 in VGSCOPE, which states that excessive listing of gameplay concepts is not a valid spin-out rationale.

-A source search for notability only yields WP:ROUTINE coverage on gameplay changes when new games come out, as well as WP:VALNET articles that do not provide notability per WP:VG/RS. A search through Books yields only WP:Trivial mentions or is discussing Pokémon Go's gameplay, which is unrelated to the scope of this article. Scholar yields more of the aforementioned finds, but also has a few sources discussing it in correlation with competitive Pokémon. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from the competitive Pokémon topic, which is notable and is an article I'm working on a rewrite for right now, so these sources are not helpful for determining the gameplay's individual notability.

-In short, nothing inherently dictates that Pokémon's gameplay is separately notable from the Pokémon franchise as a whole, and gameplay can easily be summarized at each game's individual article's "Gameplay" sections, as each game has such a varying style of being played that it is impossible to make one article that covers everything without falling afoul of VGSCOPE. I've mentioned a viable AtD target above (Pokémon (video games series)) that could be helpful for preserving page history on the off-chance this article turns out to be notable in the future, but as it stands, this article isn't individually notable and is better off redirected, merged, or what have you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Standalone gameplay article can be had but only if there is significant coverage of that from sources (beyond just being a gameplay guide), such as the case for Overwatch or Mahic: The Gathering. This has very little sourcing to support it. Masem (t) 21:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge~~ - to the game series article, per nom. Unnecessary spin out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to just delete. There already seems yo be no shortage of info about the gameplay elsewhere, no need to merge. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand nom's rationale that "The article's scope is unclear". The article describes the gameplay of the games described in Pokémon (video game series) as "The main series of role-playing video games (RPGs), referred as the 'core series' by their developers". Separately, I'm not against a merge of the current content of the article, which is largely duplicative of the series and individual game articles. However, from trying to navigate between the various Pokémon game articles, it's currently already frustrating to actually understand the gameplay of any individual game, due to the articles being structured with descriptions of "like previous entries" or "the same as X", plus a "new features" section. I think merging this makes that problem worse, necessitating the reader to read back through the line of individual game articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're saying it veers off-topic a lot, which I agree with. For starters, why would you put a "release timeline" in a gameplay article? There's lots of that sort of stuff, the more you look and think about it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that if there's any issues that are caused by this article's removal, I am willing to and will handle the fixing of those issues editorially. I've been working on improving the Pokémon topic area for a while now, so I know what areas and articles this will affect and what will need to be changed. If you have any more specific advice for this problem, let me know and I'll try to implement these into the articles. At worst, also, we can link a hatnote to the relevant subsection (In this case, Pokémon (video game series)#Gameplay) in place of the previous hatnote to the Gameplay of Pokémon article, as this subsection currently covers the bulk of the important information as is. If you have any more suggestions on if anything else should be merged to that section, then feel free to say it here, and if closed as redirect/merge, we can add it there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or partial merge, per nom. Gameplay of X" or "Story of X" is essentially the same as "X". Beyond some point, it begins to violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:UNDUE. Once you clean up the violating material, you'd find it redundant with the game article itself, with very little new ground to cover. The main Pokémon (video game series) article is a good place to summarize the essential features across these many games, and is already surplus coverage that isn't covered at the individual game articles. (In addition to the main Pokémon article about the whole multi-media intellectual property.) If Pokelego999's opinion is that this is excessive, then other editors should take that seriously. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the relevant gameplay section of the series article. The only reason to separate what is functionally identical subject matter to the game itself is to cover a topic with significant coverage and/or analysis, rather than to expand on detail to the point of WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:UNDUE. The content and sources seem purely descriptive, and a shorter summary of this could be merged in the game itself. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE, IMO. As said by the nominator, it lacks evidence the gameplay is standalone notable. Wikibooks does accept game guides nowadays, but it's not something typical for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The current article goes beyond being a reasonable spinout article and is simply a WP:GAMEGUIDE. The main article on the game series already has a very good section on the common gameplay elements of the series at Pokémon (video game series)#Gameplay, and I honestly don't see it being improved by merging anything from here. I would not object for this to Redirect to that section, though, if people think it would be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a reasonable spinout. Video game topics are supposed to be written with full context including reception. An article about the gameplay of the series and its reception would just be Pokémon (video game series). Jontesta (talk) 18:31, 26 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!} 21:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Spiritism

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

the timeline is not notable, and it is not supported by significant reliable sources Drew Stanley (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just to add - see Kardecist Spiritism -- the timeline is about using the story of Kardecist spiritism to tell the story of spiritism/spiritualism/all related movements. It is a lens to promote the centrality of a certain ideology Drew Stanley (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to exist. Yes to a category and yes to a History of spiritualism article. I would not oppose a move. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, if you are okay with an article move, it sounds like you are open to Keeping this article under a different page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the "Delete" vote looks like it is also a possible "Keep and Move" vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced that the article has a place not already covered more thoroughly by Spiritualism (movement) or Template:Spiritualism and spiritism. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:23, 31 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!} 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eitermillen

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

A very small place with no notability of its own, better as a redirect to Contern. The sources often don't support the text (e.g. despite repeated claims that Eitermillen used to be at a place now called Maulin Diderich, I don't see any of the sources making that connection?) and are passing mentions or names on maps only. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of this tiny hamlet (a "lieu-dit" is basically a named house or group of houses, not a once independent village), and the history and demographics seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR due to this lack of sources. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ I do believe the subject matter here is notable, however it appears that the article in its current state lacks in sourcing to verify claims and establish said notability. Once redirected I can once again work on a draft or in my sandbox to compile more sources and improve the article so it’s ready for the mainspace. N1TH Music (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd vortex of an article where it clearly exists on maps and in at least one source, but there's nothing else to support that source in anything that's easily searchable on the web: ie I can verify that the place exists just enough to know it's likely not a hoax, but not enough to get it past the WP:V we need for a legally recognised place. (The fact there are no page numbers for the 1889/90 source help nothing.) I'd prefer a result which allows restoration once verified. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer well the source [10], it might be just a map but it’s posted on an official government owned website also if you look at the article List of Populated places in Luxembourg the sources cited is also that of a government owned website and is a database of all the legally recognised localities in Luxembourg an it lists Éitermillen. Is that not enough to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first map shows Oetrange, Kackerterhaff, and Moutfort, but even when zoomin in no "Eitermillen" appears. Is it supposed to be where the Rue du Moulin and Route de Remich meet? Fram (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram there’s a search bar at the top wherein you can type Eitermillen and a point appears at the location was if you click the directions icon. Either way it’s in the database. I think I’ve found a clearer link here. Also here is another webpage from the government of Luxembourg website which also mentions Eitermillen. And yes it is around where Route de Remich and Rue de Moulin meet. Is that not sufficient to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there’s also this which is a communal document discussing all the projects completed between 2017 and 2023 in Contern and there were 2 projects in Eitermillen which is mentioned by name on page 23 and page 32. N1TH Music (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 23 says "New railings on the Eitermillen", this indicates that it isn't really a populated place but a location, building, route... You wouldn't say "new railings on Contern", that would make no sense. Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram might be a translation error, here’s the french version also those steps can’t refer to a building because there’s no building there, what they’re referring to is this path which is a public footpath connection 2 streets, there isn’t even a building there. Also what about the other citations I listed here. N1TH Music (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at everything: after a map which doesn't mention Eitermillen, and a communal document stating that they will add railings to a path named Eitermillen, I now checked this one you gave, where the closest I can find is Hëttermillen, which is also the only results I get when searching that website for Eitermillen[11]. So, after three wild goose chases, I stop looking at sources you provide, as they are wasting my time. Fram (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Strange, the 3rd and most recent source you checked, when I typed “Eitermillen” into google, google stated that found inside the link “ Concernant la réglementation temporaire de la circulation sur la N2 entre Sandweiler et le lieu-dit « Eitermillen » à l'occasion de travaux forestiers.” And yet in the website itself I can’t find it. I apologise I should have double checked before sending it.

But you seem to have ignored the source I mentioned was listed on the List of populated places in Luxembourg article. On page 15 if you press the eye icon on the file you can find it clearly lists it under both Eitermillen and Oetrange-Moulin. And while it does say that it’s not an “official locality” thats because Lieu-dits aren’t incorporated as such because that entails them being census subdivisions. Kréintgeshaff for example isn’t incorporated either, unless you think Kréintgeshaff should be deleted too, either way is this not evidence of Éitermillen being legally recognised? And I actually found more sources but it seems you don’t need to see anymore. N1TH Music (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "at the Eitermillen" is a translation error. I'd err on the side of keep now. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't indicate much more than what we know, it's a "lieu-dit": our article on those isn't very good, but basically this is a named farm (or mill in this case), not an actual village. This is the Luxemburgish article on them[12], the translation makes it clear that these aren't really considered villages. Fram (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - the translation of the Letzebuergish shows a lieu-dit could also have been anything from a house to a former locality, and we potentially have a census listing of 8 people living there which would indeed qualify it, if the source is any good (again this is where a lack of a page number hurts.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer do you not have access to the preview or something? Because when I view the source I can scroll through the pages of the book at located exactly where it says “Oetrange-Moulin”. The listing is on page 255. N1TH Music (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There it is, thanks! It's a very large document and search didn't work. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer So is that a keep from you then or a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from me. It meets our criteria, but not by much. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched for more sources and begun rewriting the article to better fit WP:V, I am changing my status from Redirect to Keep as I'm now more confident in the articles Notability. N1TH Music (talk) 10:36, 20 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!} 17:50, 17 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!} 20:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be part of Oetrange, with the French name (Oetrange-Moulin) being Oetrange combined with the road. I'm not sure what makes it a separate topic. CMD (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis officially Eitermillen has always been categorised as a separate settlement, all sources I’ve found discussing it seem to talk of it separately from Oetrange, for example then 1890 census, this topographic map from 1905 (albeit under a different name), and even modern communal documents, on pages 23 and 32 of this it discusses new stuff being constructed in Eitermillen not in Oetrange. Finally, this source which lists every locality in Luxembourg and is the basis for the entire List of Populated Places in Luxembourg article has 2 separate entries for Oetrange and Oetrange-Moulin. (If you want to see for yourself, it’s on page 15 of the document) N1TH Music (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say any of those sources discuss Eitermillen. That aside, the one conter.lu page that would load for me calls it "the Éitermillen", which if not unusual should likely be reflected in the prose. CMD (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis as is written earlier, the “at the Éitermillen” is a translation error, for example also on page 32 it reads, “new trees in route de remich. As route de remich is a road, “on” is the appropriate terminology there. These translation errors aren’t uncommon they clearly meant to say “in Éitermillen and if you’re really not sure then a quick look at the french version should clear everything up. N1TH Music (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence for it being a translation error? CMD (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Well on page 23, in the section "New railings on the Éitermillen" there is underneath the text, in italics, the french title, "Nouvelle balustrade à Oetrange-moulin afin d’améliorer la sécurité des promeneurs" which, when translated properly translates to "New railings in Oetrange-moulin to improve safety for walkers". Same goes for the page 32 sections, "La création de deux étangs à Oetrange-moulin" translates to "The creation of two ponds at Oetrange-moulin" or "The creation of two ponds at Oetrange-moulin". The reason it could be either is because the french word "à" can mean either "at" or "in" depending on context and that is the source of the translation error. However either way neither translation referred to the place as "The Eitermillen"

Additionally on this matter I can prove that "Oetrange-Moulin" isn't just a mill in Oetrange and is a separate settlement. For starters, Oetrange-Moulin/Éitermillen directly translates to "Oetrange Mill" not the Mill of Oetrange which is how a building itself would be referred to. In fact the building where the settlement is located has several historical references where it is listed as the "Moulin d'Oetrange".By checking the government database, a-z.lu I searched for both "Moulin d'Oetrange" and "Oetrange-Moulin. Oetrange-Moulin yielded many listings of it amongst other place names for example, [13][14][15][16] while Moulin d'Oetrange yielded newspaper listings for the purposes of advertisement of the mill itself, [17], therefore no Oetrange-Moulin is not just a name given to a mill near Oetrange. Additionally it is important to note that many of the listings of Oetrange-Moulin for example [18] also list Oetrange as a separate entry in the same directory therefore demonstrating that they are regarded as separate settlements. And if you're still not certain then I can demonstrate that this phenomenon of having 2 different settlements named like this is actually very common, for example Fawkham and Fawkham Green, 2 places administered under the same parish but depicted as 2 different places on all maps due to some sort of historical separation. Other examples include Wonston and South Wonston or Latheron and Latheronwheel. N1TH Music (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can translate the French as well, that doesn't mean the authors might not be translating it differently for a reason. I don't follow the logic for the second paragraph, "Oetrange Mill not the Mill of Oetrange" seems a distinction without a difference, and you need to work on your examples, Fawkham Green it its entirety as an article is "Fawkham Green see Fawkham". How did you even find that? CMD (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I selected Fawkham green as it was a place I remembered finding a few years ago on a map. I just happened to remember that place when searching for examples, obviously the article for Fawkham green is terrible however and honestly should probably just be redirected. But regardless of the dubious quality of the article my point was that these 2 places are listed separately on maps

And as for "that doesn't mean the authors might not be translating it differently for a reason", I cannot prove anything with absolute certainty (unless you want me to literally go to the town hall itself and ask which I'd actually be fully willing to do as I genuinely want to know for certain) but I highly doubt that "New railings on the Éitermillen" or "New ponds at the Éitermillen" were translated as such for any reason as to me that reads as broken English, that doesn't sound grammatically or syntactically correct at all. It reads as though the translator the commune found to translate this document isn't fluent in English. Therefore I believe it is just to assume they are indeed translation errors under WP:Common Sense and therefore this communal document is viable as a source to demonstrate that Éitermillen is a distinct, notable settlement separate from Oetrange. N1TH Music (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The X" is a perfectly fine grammatical structure, not broken English, and is not uncommon for place names. In this case, it's easy to for example translate it as "new ponds at the mill". CMD (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Alright for that specific example I concede that it is possible that they could have been referring to the mill itself. But how could you justify that "New railings on the Éitermillen" is not an error as the railings weren't constructed on the mill itself, they are on a public footpath. One cannot say that there are railings on a mill, if the railings aren't on the mill to begin with, they're on a path 50 metres away from it.

Additionally the 2 paragraphs discussing Éitermillen aren't the only ones with incorrect syntax. Also on page 32 there is a paragraph titled "New trees in Route de Remich", last I checked one cannot plant trees in a road, trees are planted on a road. This example isn't a one off either, on page 10, the entire "New retention basins" section, the same mistake is made continuously, "in the rue de la source", "in the rue de prés". The error is made clearer if you are to translate the street names, "in the source road" and "in the meadow road" are incorrect syntax. What it should say is "on source road" and "on meadow road" N1TH Music (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't plant trees on a road, that would be very bad for traffic. You can however plant them on a route. However, this is not that important overall, the point is we have apparently one source with sentences and that at least twice uses the "the" prose structure. That we have to analyse this closely to try and figure out which English grammatical structure they may have been using and whether it was in error, for something as basic as the name, is perhaps a sign more sources are needed. CMD (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis okay you made a small error there "route de remich" is quite literally the name of the road itself but you're right that's not so important, I shall read closer to seek clarity and will see if any other sources can confirm that this is in fact a translation error and that Oetrange-Moulin is in fact regarded as a place and isn't just the mill of Oetrange. N1TH Music (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping it being a place with a "the". My original point was about prose, although it did turn into a lack of sourcing issue. CMD (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Alright so I presume that the main issues you have suggested to confirm the notability of this article are "Is it verifiable that this place is regarded as separate from Oetrange" and if so "is this place independently notable. Therefore the concerns are centred on WP:V and WP:GEOLAND.

Éitermillen is a Lieu-dit which is a type of small settlement. The nominator here, Fram holds the opinion that Lieu-dits aren't villages, which is correct and that therefore they aren't legally recognised, which is not true and not notable which is misguided as Lieu-dits vary massively. Kréintgeshaff, Banzelt, and Waldhof all either have sizeable populations major pieces of infrastructure which yield them local importance while others like Brem in Dalheim or Marxeknupp also in Contern (which I, a while ago made an article for which was redirected) only consist of a couple of buildings. What groups them together is solely that they are all categorised by the government as Liue-dits. All of these places, appear in this previously mentioned directory, as well as several others [19][20] It's listed on road signs as per the image in the infobox in the article and mentioned on documents discussing imminent road works [21] Its also listed in Communal documents like the one we discussed previously, and it's listed in census records, [22]Page 255 [23]Page 27. Finally there are several official maps published by Geoportail.lu (a government run website) which mention it, including 2 from 1905, 1927 and 1939 which mention it under a different name, those from 1954, to 1979 which refer to it as the "ancient mill" to more modern maps which albeit do only refer to it as "Millen" (mill in Luxembourgish) however if you check the legend listed the text used is that of "petit lieu-dit" and since it is named "Eitermillen" and is in close proximity to "Oetrange" they decided to drop the first half.[24] There are several more documents I found but decided not to include as many were similar directories of place names or maps which had no new information and others were the ones on A-Z.lu which I'd already mentioned previously. All of this should provide enough verifiability that Éitermillen is in fact regarded as a place, a "populated, Legally recognised place" and therefore it is "presumed to be notable" under WP:GEOLAND. As for WP:V, I think that these same references do provide a clear enough distinction between Éitermillen and Oetrange to verify that it is a separate place. If you still aren't sure here are some news articles detailing traffic collisions which were described as occurring in Éitermillen/Oetringen-Muhle,[25][26][27][28]

All this should mean that only concern regarding the notability of the article should be WP:GNG more specifically, WP:SIGCOV. I think SIGCOV is passed as a result of the previously discussed communal document, the census records, the documents I referred to on A-Z.lu and these 3 pages I found on Industrie.lu which collectively detail the history of the area[1][2][3].

If you have any concerns regarding the sources or whether this is actually sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND, WP:V or WP:SIGCOV, please explain as there are several avenues of sources I'm still yet to properly delve into and I admit that many of the sources might be hard to read or get information out of. N1TH Music (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to presume. My main issue with notability is the lack of dedicated sources, and the long convoluted arguments to try and work around that aren't convincing. My main issue with WP:V is the English in the content (wherever that content is located) not following the source provided. CMD (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Well I not too long ago did trim the article down due to some of the content consisting of extrapolation of multiple sources and therefore being WP:SYNTH but I'm pretty sure all that currently remains is properly sourced. Could you maybe pinpoint any claims you feel aren't verifiably sourced.

Also on the topic of WP:V, having reread it, I'm not entirely sure exactly what that does entail, perhaps you could clear it up to prevent me making any repeat errors. For example I wrote "It (Éitermillen) was later listed on various maps from 1905 to 1939 under the name "Moulin Diederich" and I sited both examples from the 1905 and 1939 maps. I'm pretty certain as these are on Geoportail that these are reliable sources but would you class that kind of usage as WP:SYNTH or is that a valid claim to make given the sources provided? N1TH Music (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N1TH, I haven't mentioned that specific claims aren't verifiably sourced. What I've said multiple times is that no source has been provided discussing the article topic, and the one that comes closest is not reflected in the prose. CMD (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis So what you're saying is that for notability to be established there must be at least one source which discusses Éitermillen in depth, so the WP:V concerns are also largely WP:SIGCOV concerns? Understood, I'll continue searching to see if I can find anything that fits that criteria. N1TH Music (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although in the current Google Streetview the place name sign depicted in the article has disappeared, it was there in August 2021. Note on this view[29] the yellow sign to the left has a red line through Moutfort, which suggests there's some official recognition that Moutfort and Éitermillen are distinct places.On leaving the hamlet is this sign[30] which has strike through of the alternative name of Oetrange-Moulin, but with Éitermillen on the reverse. Hopefully, this helps with verification.Rupples (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples The signage hasn’t disappeared, its been moved, now it’s located around 49.594430, 6.250423. however that sign from my memory wasn’t put up until sometime around last 2023 to early 2024 and the street view is from 2022. I could go get a photograph of the new sign if you need proof. Therefore there also seems to be some expansion of what is considered Eitermillen recently and interestingly enough, the new signage is yellow which represents a village. Also there’s one more sign for entry/exit of Éitermillen [22] N1TH Music (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the significance of the yellow/white background of these signs? I read on one website (not official) that yellow denotes a town. Rupples (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples Yeah, Yellow denotes a town/village/city, essentially any major population centre, also yellow signage for entry to a settlement is usually bilingual. White signage is for Lieu-dits, which are generally smaller places like historic farmsteads/mills and the homes and sometimes commercial buildings which surround them. All of this is detailed in List of Populated places in Luxembourg. The new yellow signage is a little strange however as it’s still monolingual only saying “Éitermillen”. Furthermore all sources indicate it’s a lieu-dit, I mean I’ve never previously heard of a settlement changing designation and I haven’t found any documents detailing the sign change or any potential change is status which is frustrating. N1TH Music (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples Actually it appears nearby Milbech might actually be a Lieu-dit. I always thought it was a village, as it used yellow signage, but upon further investigation I’m not sure. I’ll have to look into it. However, in general, yes yellow means village/town and white means Lieu-dit N1TH Music (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge under a new heading in Oetrange.Struck because while the postal address is Oetrange, it doesn't prove the population is included there, so all we definitely know is Eitermillen is part of the commune of Contern. Rupples (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC) The official list of localities of Luxembourg states Oetrange-Moulin (official French name)/Éitermillen (Luxembourgish) is marked "non" for official locality, so my understanding is that while the name is recognised it's not designated an official settlement and so doesn't have presumed notability under WP:NPLACE. There's insufficient coverage to pass the GNG because sources are mainly primary, maps, databases. The content of both www.industrie.lu sources is limited to a single building - the mill/hotel rather than a settlement. Therefore a merge/redirect is appropriate. The official place the buildings are in according to https://map.geoportail.lu is Oetrange and that article already mentions Éitermillen. Rupples (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples in spite of the name, I don't think a merger into Oetrange would make much sense. Éitermillen is situated much closer to Moutfort and is on a road between Moutfort and Sandweiler, it's modern day links to Oetrange are in name only. I therefore think if a merge is necessary that it should be merged into Contern and the subheading can be put in the settlements section amongst other Lieu-dits in a similar vein.

On another note I think it's very much debatable whether this passes WP:NPLACE or not, as the listing of "non" for official locality is misleading. An official locality does not necessarily refer to one settlement/built up area, rather it is a statistical subdivision. As per this source, there are four official localities but if you add up the populations of all of them, it always equals exactly the population of the commune as a whole even though there are obviously people who live outside of these villages. Therefore Brichermillen and Pleitrange are statistically administered as a part of Moutfort, and Kréintgeshaff is administered as a part of Contern in spite of there being in all 3 cases, 2 kilometres of open farmland and therefore they obviously aren't the same settlement. These places even if they aren't recognised as "Localities" are still "populated, legally recognised places" which is the main guideline of WP:NPLACE due to the aforementioned road signage, they presence on official maps like Geoportail and the fact that they are in the official list of localities at all. Some other named farmsteads which at face value might seem similar like Faerschthaff for example aren't legally recognised and this is noted as they are absent from Geoportail and the official list of localities. N1TH Music (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Contern is preferred I think it's a redirect only. There's numerous localities listed in Contern, many of which could feasibly be expanded to the level of this article. Three questions: 1. Why was the Luxembourgish name chosen for the article title, as opposed to the official French name? 2. Is not a separate redirect needed for Oetrange-Moulin? 3. Can it be verified that the population of Éitermillen is included in Oetrange? There's no set definition for "legally recognised, populated places" so it's open to argument. While NPLACE gives presumed notabilty it does not guarantee a separate article especially when very little is available in secondary sources and/or context is better provided within another article. Wikipedia does have aspects of a gazetteer, but is not one. Rupples (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about other localities which could be feasibly expanded to the level of this article, Pleitrange was redirected, Bricherhaff was deleted and Kackerterhaff is a draft which I'm not certain on the notability of. Meanwhile yes, Brichermillen and Kréintgeshaff do have articles. I presume the consensus to be that Lieu-dits are presumed to pass WP:NPLACE on the condition that they effectively pass WP:GNG and therefore are to be considered on a case by case basis in accordance with the number of reliable sources and relevant information available. Therefore for all the ones which aren't quite notable, I could write a small paragraph in the Contern article and provided links to the places which do have articles and redirects to the Contern article for all places which aren't quite notable. That seems to me the most effective way to make the information accessible on wikipedia. As for the choice of the Luxembourgish name being used, when it comes to Lieu-dits it really depends which name is more commonly used, Bricherhaff, Kréintgeshaff, etc... are places where the luxembourgish name appears more common, on geoportail, on maps, on road signs etc... Éitermillen does appear to very often be referred to by its French name in sources, but those are mostly historical, a map plastered outside the town hall of Contern refers to it as Éitermillen as do communal documents and a document I found regarding road closures so in spite of all the historical references which refer to it by the French name, all modern sources us the Luxembourgish so I find it more appropriate and the precedent with Lieu-dits does appear to be using the Luxembourgish name too. Additionally, as Éitermillen is a separate place to Oetrange that also happens to be closer linked to Moutfort, I think usage of the Luxembourgish name also mitigates confusion between them. As for the French name, sure a second redirect can be created, that's a common enough practice. And I do not know what you mean by "Can it be verified that the population of Éitermillen is included in Oetrange?" could you elaborate? N1TH Music (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said the total population of Contern is divided between four towns. How do we know which of the four includes Éitermillen - it could be Moutfort or Oetrange. By the way, the Ma Langue Sourit restaurant might be notable. Rupples (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples I remember seeing it listed on more than one old source, but since there was no relevant new information on any of them so I didn't save them, I'd have to search again. I think the localities might also refer to the post town but I'm not sure, so I'll go check that. From memory I think Kackerterhaff and Eitermillen are in Oetrange, Bricherhaff, Brichermillen and Pleitrange are in Moutfort, Kréintgeshaff is in Contern, and Marxeknupp is in Medingen. N1TH Music (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep according to this source The streets, Kackerterhaff, Eitermillen, Rue du Moulin and at least some part of Route de Remich are listed as being in Oetrange, I also double checked and it appears Bricherhaff and Brichermillen are grouped in with Contern as well as Kréintgeshaff and Pleitrange is in Oetrange. Also Milbech is grouped with Moutfort as I found some of the streets in Milbech (Cité Ledenbierg for example) listed in the moutfort page. N1TH Music (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've found this book which if you search "oetringen" you find mentions of "Oetringen-muhle" and "Kackerterhof" being associated with it and similarly if you search "Contern" "bruecherhof" and "bruechermuhle" turns up. However it is important to not that this book is titled essentially "history of settlements in luxembourg" and therefore I cannot confirm that this is information that is still correct in the present day. I'm also yet to prove that the post towns are the same as the localities. However I think that was besides my original point which was that there are 4 localities in Contern and each of them however do consist of multiple populated, legally recognised settlements. N1TH Music (talk) 20:24, 30 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!} 21:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006 Yakima hops fire

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United States of America, and Washington. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One source from the time it happened doesn't cut it; zero lasting significance. (And incidentally, I lived in the area at the time and I have no memory of this incident.) WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's coverage of the hops shortage caused by the fire [31], [32]. [33], but that would be a new article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a List of Washington wildfires equivalent for structure fires, this could be merged there. I don't see that such a list exists. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 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. The consensus is, basically, "weak keep". Too weak, I think, to call it a keep. asilvering (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont

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

Article subject does not meet GNG and is mostly a genealogical entry. WP:NOTGENEOLOGY . D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is not just genealogy, but now I've violated Godwin's law. Sorry Mike Godwin. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is mainly about his father who is significantly more notable. Wittekind is only referred to 2 times in it - page 265 and 266. Once to mention Himmler was his godfather and sent him presents. And once to say he succeeded his father as "head of the house". This doesn't seem like it meets the bar for WP:SIGCOV to me. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to weak keep, even if only by fact, that he was Himmler's godson and head of this nobles family. Another reason is (which, strictly speaking, has no impact on the enwiki), that there are articles about him in 12 other wiki projects. I would really like to see this article on our wiki not delited, given these weak arguments.--Noel baran (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being Himmler's child isn't enough for notability so I don't see why being his godson would be either.

Being the head of a formerly noble family is just genealogy at this point, he is 2 generations removed from the abolition of the monarchy in Germany.

The point about the other language wikis is irrelevant as you point out (WP:OTHERLANGS) D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if OTHERLANGS was a valid argument, most (all?) of the other language articles on him are just direct machine translations of the en.wp page, that's not evidence of his being independently notable in those projects. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Noel baran — Cosmic6811 T/C 19:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
)))) Noel baran (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The notability bar would have to be lowered considerably if being Himmler's godson and head of a now-obscure aristocratic family in these modern times qualifies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, there's certainly a few mentions of him, but fairly obscure. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and in the hope that a German obituary might be published providing more details of his army career and cultural and forestry work. Plus, the house of which he was head once ruled one of Germany's principalities so it was more than just an average aristocratic family. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability requires IRS SIGCOV in multiple sources, which has not been demonstrated here. Passing mentions do not count, even in aggregate, and the argument that "being Himmler's godson" or "being head of a defunct noble family" is a claim to notability is in direct contravention of NOTINHERITED. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from what's already in the article, there's an additional source from Histioires Royales in France (here). Also, the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, which he was awarded, is the only federal decoration of Germany and very prestigious. Since there's coverage in reliable sources and a federal-level award, I'm a solid "keep". --16:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gym Samba (talk • contribs)
I disagree that the award alone is significant enough to warrant this article. Over 262k people have received an Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. HistoiresRoyales seems more like a royalist fanblog rather than a reliable news source and would be pretty weak if the article's references are hinged on that. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Histoires Royales is a non-expert blog, it cannot be used as a source. And the award is certainly not enough to meet ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D1551D3N7: Why would they be hinged on that single source rather than the ones already in the article? I pointed out the source I linked is an additional source, not that it's the only source.

As for the award, it meets WP:ANYBIO #1, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." There's nothing in the description of that criteria that weighs how often the award it presented. It's well known, and significant, as it's the highest level of honor in Germany.--Gym Samba (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many degrees of the order and he received one of the lower degrees. For a similar example, not everyone who is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire is notable enough by virtue of their reward to get a Wikipedia article. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact Wittekind received this award is so significant why is the only reference available an article from 2001 in a small regional newspaper? I can't even find out what class of honour it was.

There's an essay (not a policy) here Wikipedia:Notability_(awards_and_honors) that mentions the problems with the interpretation of awards significance for notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Notability is borderline re GNG with an obit at local/regional newspaper Waldeckische Landeszeitung with several paragraphs of biographical information and the Hesse government's article on the death of the Prince where Boris Rhein praises him as "a defining character who shaped not only the region, but the entire country" and to a lesser extent: an article about his 80th birthday met Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and one sentence of Prince Wittekind stepping down as chair of the Foundation of the Princely House of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Worst case scenario redirect to Josias,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Waldeck_and_Pyrmont#Family. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:43, 24 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!} 20:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to the above German-language coverage and meriting a statement from the head of government of a German state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 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!} 21:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

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

The only independent reliable sources found are brief mentions within primary source news reports about broader events (e.g. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75355, https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/5enz43u7pl, etc.). Per WP:SIRS, primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. This title was previously redirected to the supervising Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but the redirect was removed by an editor without regard to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, non-profit and government-run schools don't have to comply with WP:SIRS. They only have to meet the GNG.

Also, did you check for sources in the Bengali language? Or in the local newspapers, such as the ones listed in Comilla#Media? When an article says that a secondary school is one of the oldest and largest of its type in its entire country, and that it has thousands of students, the failure to find sources usually turns out to say more about our limited search skills than the actual availability of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Nearly all of my editing is of Bangladesh-related topics, so I'm constantly searching in Bengali, but sometimes forget that not everyone will know that, and neglect to mention it explicitly in nominations. In addition to general searches in Bengali, I specifically searched three local news outlets that in my experience are reliable: amodbd, comillarkagoj and dailyamadercomilla.

My reading of WP:ORG is that all schools must comply with WP:SIRS or WP:GNG, so I agree with you in part. Although WP:ORG's second sentence says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, ...", its subsection WP:NSCHOOL says "All universities, colleges and schools, ... must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline." The subsection goes on to say that with respect to WP:ORG, for-profit educational institutions must in addition satisfy WP:COMMERCIAL. WP:SIRS is not part of the commercial requirements, but part of the top level "Primary criteria" section. WP:GNG doesn't spell it out as forcefully as WP:SIRS does, but says "'Sources' [used to establish notability] should be secondary sources ..." I can substitute that language for what I said about WP:SIRS in the nomination if you prefer, but the thrust of my argument remains the same.

It's true that Comilla Polytechnic Institute (1962) is one of the oldest government polytechnics in what is now Bangladesh, but the same can be said of the other 20 or so that were set up between 1955 and 1964. About 30 more have been established, I think all since 2000. Very little has been written about them individually, but some sources cover them collectively, so I believe a redirect to an article that treats them as a group is best. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG doesn't "spell it out as forcefully" as SIRS because the GNG doesn't agree with SIRS. Secondary sources are not necessarily rare; a source that says CPI is "one of the oldest" is a secondary source (because it's comparing it against other schools, and comparison is a form of analysis, and analysis is the hallmark of a secondary source).

IMO some of the best sources for schools are government agency reports that cover multiple schools. A report that says something like these are bigger than those, these are cheaper than those, these require higher test scores than those, etc. would be perfect for getting a decent little encyclopedia article together for each of the schools in the report. (Neither CORP nor GNG require a source to be exclusively about the subject, though obviously the parts of a source that discuss only 'School 1' are not useful for determining whether 'School 2' is notable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 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) 17:32, 10 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!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The one Delete "vote" is from a globally blocked editor so additional arguments are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's nothing approaching reliable sources applied or found in a reasonable BEFORE. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 28 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) 01:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoriya Adiyeva

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

Disputed PROD. Fails significant coverage criteria. Editor who disputed the PROD said there are lots of sources but did not add anything to the article and I can not find anything that would amount to significant coverage. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Ice hockey, and Kazakhstan. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find Fandom sites and wiki mirrors, none of which are notable. The one source used in the article is a listing only. I don't find enough sourcing to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what @Flibirigit: (deproder, searching on Google returns multiple Russian and Kazakhstan-language sources available to expand her biography) found before deleting this three-time Asian Games gold medalist and Olympian. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 me too but as I said above, they made the statement, added nothing to the article and I cannot find the content they refer to. If I could've then I would've added it myself. They have also been totally silent in the nine days since I AFDed this article. Shrug02 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the others in this discussion, I couldn't find anything that could be used to show notability for this BLP. Without WP:SIGCOV, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Participating in the Olympics or any other competition is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Let'srun (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Russian Wikipedia she was Master of Sports of International Class of the Republic of Kazakhstan [ru], a title which appears to be the highest honor for Kazakh sportspeople, which arguably would pass WP:ANYBIO. She was also vice captain of the national team and seems to have been considered one of the most prominent players on it. Unless there's evidence that some Kazakh newspaper was searched from her time period, I'd lean towards keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something there, there isn't a cited source for that claim. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wonder if a redirect could be possible at all. There seems to be a chance that she is notable but nobody has come forward with any Russian language sources that may or may not exist. But I'm not sure what that target would be? Adamtt9 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've found several sources that imply Adiyeva/Mussatayeva was a prominent member of the Kazakh national team and appears to have been a player with whom the public was familiar (1, 2, 3, 4). Her career with Aisulu Almaty – Kazakhstan's most successful women's club team – spanned well over a decade. Despite her apparent importance as a figure in Kazakh women's hockey, I've had the same difficulty as other respondents with finding substantial coverage. The transliteration of her name poses a hurdle for sourcing in English, as I’ve encountered a broad number of transliterations: Viktoriya/Viktoria Adyeva/Adiyeva/Adyyeva Mussatayeva/Musatayeva/Musataeva. In Cyrillic, her married surname is also spelled differently between Russian and Kazakh – Russian Виктория Мусатаева versus Kazakh Виктория Мұсатаева (source). I haven’t found a reliable source for her maiden name in Kazakh, which is another limiting factor.
The Russian Wikipedia article at ru:Мусатаева, Виктория Назымовна is more content-rich than the English language article but its sourcing is also poor.
All this to say, I feel this is very likely a person for whom substantial coverage exists in Kazakh and Russian printed sources but I conceede that, without those sources, she is unlikely to pass GNG. Spitzmauskc (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had also tried to search the archives of Kazakh newspapers (sports.kz, kazpravda) using her Cyrillic name and didn't come across anything more substantial. If actual coverage can be found this page can easily be recreated, but at this moment it totally fails SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 29 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!} 21:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

János Végső

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~ I think this one warrants more investigation. Significant coverage in the Hungarian Sports newspaper Nemzeti Sport such as [34] and [35]. Also some here on Blikk website.[36] A google search for his name and nemzeti sport shows multiple strong hits so may well be notable in Hungary. Canary757 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above coverage (though the Nemzeti Sport links seem to be the same one), with even more coverage available in Hungarian language websites - Hatharom, Nemzeti Sport and interviewed in part in Bunteto. Interestingly, Nemzeti Sport in an article specifies that there was "another final success, but not from János"... that's gotta be at least some sign of notability that they've gotta specifically mention it wasn't him, right? Anyway, further research would benefit from using the Hungarian-language versions of his name - either "Végső János" or "Végső Jánosnak". ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good extra source addedCanary757 (talk) 13:36, 17 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!} 21:21, 17 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!} 19:58, 24 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.

2007 Comilla bus crash

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Bangladesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:LASTING. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2007 in Bangladesh. 2007 in Bangladesh needs a sentence about this. Geschichte (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Oceania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the worst road accident in the history of Papua New Guinea, which IMHO gives it "additional enduring significance" per criterion #4 of WP:NEVENT. Astaire (talk) 18:37, 28 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!} 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, fails WP:LASTING. Cutlass ^Ciera 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that it was the worst road accident in PNG's history makes me hesitant to say delete, but I'm barely even finding mentions of the accident after the burst of initial news coverage. It doesn't seem to have led to any policy reforms, ongoing commemorations etc. that would suggest that it meets WP:LASTING. While it may rank first numerically in terms of the number of deaths, I'm not sure that on its own is enough to demonstrate "additional enduring significance" per WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no lasting effects on this event as the editors said. No follow-up sources have been found which qualifies WP:LASTING. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:15, 1 January 2025 (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!} 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Laith Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP, this is also WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interested editors should refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whyalwayslie 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, can't find any reliable secondary coverage of this company in English or Arabic, just more of the cringeful paid placement that it's currently sourced with. They've been involved with a few notable projects, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. There's another, unrelated company with the same name in Iraq. Wikishovel (talk) 16:06, 30 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.

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago and no consensus. I'm not seeing any extensive coverage to meet GNG or WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books link above produces false positives only. Google News link above produces single sentence mentions, or people claiming to have been part of the orchestra. Searched The Wikipedia Library, no results for WSSSO, one result for the full name, which is a single sentence mention in this article. Google Scholar produces three results, of which both the second result (download link) and the third result both only mention the orchestra twice while referencing the research done by the first result. The first result is the only SIGCOV I could find. The researchers administered an online survey to 41 WSSSO youth in 2009 containing many Likert-style questions about their experience, and three open-ended questions: "why did you decide to take part ... why do you continue to take part ... what would stop you taking part? The article is entitled "Advanced youth music ensembles: Experiences of, and reasons for, participation", so it seems to discuss the experiences of being in an ensemble, rather than being a comprehensive history of WSSSO. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - found 32 results on Newspapers.com. First result is SIGCOV, founding of the orchestra. But the rest of the results are more sketchy and WP:ROUTINE - advertisements, concert announcements and single sentence mentions (Person X is joining the orchestra / the orchestra is performing at location Y). I do not think this is enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SKANS School of Accountancy

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

Non-notable for-profit accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus, did you search for sources in Arabic? Did you check the Pakistani newspapers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Pakistan is not an Arabic-speaking country, so asking me to do checks in Arabic is not ok. In Pakistani newspapers or magazines, I found this press release. This is a for-profit school and fails WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 5 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) 17:32, 10 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!} 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accounting schools in Pakistan. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for the redirect as an ATD? Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any sources independent of it that are also not press releases. Fails WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per GNG. Quick search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media etc. profiles, and more to the point this article has had more than a decade for better sources to be added, yet no one has, so I can only assume they don't exist. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only seeing primary sources. The proposed redirect target (List of accounting schools in Pakistan) is also at AfD. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:42, 28 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. I see no consensus here and I don't think an additional relisting would clear things up. Editors are encouraged to bring all newly found sources into the article if they aren't there already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kade

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

non-notable musician, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and the same "source". GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's reporting on him from The New Times and so I added it in and he seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. He has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Vikingsam (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The New Times is giving me pause; it feels like the coverage in Indian or Nigerian media, where it seems everyone is a superstar, but no one else bothers to report on their accomplishments. Way too many hits in the one newspaper for this to be a coincidence... Feels like a PROMO. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, but that's the impression I'm getting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 10 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!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? Vikingsam (talk) 11:05, 17 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) 17:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New times as a reliable source

Rwandan in Rwanda here, new times is the only relevant news source that cares about the entertainment industry, it MIGHT be promo but that doesn't make it any less valid imo. Foundalive (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not know how the media system in Rwanda works but I think that the onus probandi lies on us to prove that The New Times is an unreliable source. Away from that, I was able to find sources from other outlets but the problem is, they’re not in English and I do not have the fortune of understanding the language. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sources:
- Janvier, Ruzindana (22 November 2023). "Kevin Kade yateguje Album ye ya mbere yise 'Baho' na". Kigali Today.
- "Kevin Kade yateguje indirimbo nshya n'imishinga afitanye n'abarimo Jux". Rwanda Broadcasting Agency. 12 May 2024.
- Emmy, Nsengiyumva (24 September 2024). "Kevin Kade agiye gutangira ibitaramo hanze y'u Rwanda". Igihe.
- This is passing mention: Adhis, Paula (17 December 2024). "The Best East African Songs of 2024". OkayAfrica.
I am not making any !vote. Just an observation. It appears that majority of newspapers in Rwanda uses their language and The New Times seems to be the major English language source from there. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not because of the New Times, which is a reliable source. It's got independent reporting, robust editorial standards, and is one of the best English-language news sources in East Africa; Wikipedia would be a lot poorer if we decided not to rely on it. (If editors are concerned about it, I recommend starting an RfC at WP:RSN.) However, the only WP:SIGCOV sources in this article are from the New Times, which constitute a single source for purposes of WP:GNG. The other sources in the article are insufficiently significant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite most of its sources are in Kinyarwanda, and editors started seeing the page as a single source for purposes of WP:GNG because of the New Times, by search, the subject has featured at least in 4 out of 5 in the first listed online newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers.

24eeWikiUser (talk) 16:22, 31 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!} 21:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratt & Whitney GG4

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

I came across Ayres' History and Future of Technology and realized it copies substantial material from Wikipedia. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preface of the book, but there are still Wikipedia pages that cite it (without explicit qualification), in a case of citogenesis. Further, there are numerous passages from the book that are copied so closely to verbatim from Wikipedia, that they may be confused for copyviolations in the future. I'm taking on marking that reference as such to avoid this.

Pratt & Whitney GG4 is a particularly extreme case - all other references were copyviolations and were stripped from the article, leaving only the circular reference to Ayres, who explicitly back links to the Wikipedia page as his only source. Is there a different source demonstrating notability? Tule-hog (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I replaced the Ayres reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References fixed, and a quick gbooks check shows a couple of sources that could be used to expand the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the new sources on gbooks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References issues have been fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 27 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!} 21:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomodorino di Manduria

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

It doesn't seem to be a noteworthy article. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment plant species are not something I would normally edit. I've added two references, one was take from the article prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale. I've included that ref (pdf) as I think it fulfills one of the criteria of WP:NBREED? Recognised under prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale? I am going to wait to see if someone from the plant project can confirm this? Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in scholarly sources (as a cultivar; I don't know if I would use the Italian name for the article title); cited in Italian newspapers ([37]; [38]); described in the official Regional Register of Autoctonous Genetical Resources of the Apulia region ([39]). --cyclopia ^speak! 11:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBREED given sources listed by @Cyclopia. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:00, 26 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. especially given the work done on the article by User:Looper5920 during the course of this discussion week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

31st Marine Expeditionary Unit

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

Half of the main text body is directly copied from https://www.31stmeu.marines.mil/About/History.aspx Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 17:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs can be provided. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs can be provided. I will begin to add today. Looper5920 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources exist. Garuda ^Talk! 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it might be necessary to revdel the copied content. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:53, 31 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.

Corentin Rahier

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The one secondary source already in the article (source 2) combined with [[40]] and [[41]] appear to contain enough coverage of Rahier to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the 2017 Junior Worlds Field Guide: Ice Dance article is from a blog site run by a single person. As such it is most likely not deemed a reliable source per WP:SPORTBASIC. The other two sources look okay at a glance. Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch there. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 21:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Bryant

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

Contested draftification of a mildly promotional bio. Sources do not support the subject's notability under WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. They are the subject's own writing ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) and official bios and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs ([47], [48]) -- there is no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, independent sources. She does not seem to be widely cited or meet any other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and she does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as far as I can tell (I see one independent review for one of her co-authored works, and we'd need more). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Military, and Washington, D.C.. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations do not stand out among those by other Susans Bryant so I do not see a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I searched for book reviews with even less success than the nominator, so I do not see a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't decide at this moment, but I did find reviews of one of the books (also cited by NOM) and reports that she had authored (or co-authored). Her area of expertise (military strategy) isn't for a general audience. I am leaning toward delete however, due to a lack of independent sources. Lamona (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article on Susan Bryant clearly meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline GNG as well as subject-specific notability criteria for academics and professionals. The subject’s extensive contributions in military studies, strategic education, and public service are well-documented through independent, reliable secondary sources, making her a notable figure deserving of coverage.
Notability through Independent Sources: Multiple reliable and independent sources substantiate Susan Bryant’s career achievements and scholarly contributions. These include her published work and her leadership in military education, as evidenced by sources like INSS Publications, AUSA.org, and Cambria Press. Such coverage demonstrates that her influence extends beyond routine professional activities and meets the GNG standard of “significant coverage in reliable sources.”

Academic and Professional Impact: Bryant’s academic role at Georgetown University, as noted in GU Faculty360, and her leadership in strategic education highlight her significant contributions to public knowledge. Her scholarship is frequently cited, including critical analyses on military leadership and societal implications of military service, further proving her impact within the field.

Policy-Driven Achievements: Bryant’s work on publications such as Deconstructing the Warrior Caste and From Citizen Soldier to Secular Saint reflects notable contributions to the scholarly and policy discourse on military and strategic studies. Such high-level intellectual engagement satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for academics, as her work is highly regarded and has been reviewed by other experts in the field.

Reliable and Verifiable Content: The references provided in the article and the additional sources (e.g., Strategic Education International and TNSR Roundtable) confirm Bryant’s leadership roles and academic scholarship. This reinforces the article’s compliance with Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. 102.91.105.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC) — 102.91.105.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, ChatGPT does not understand that the Georgetown faculty website or that her own company (Strategic Education International) are not independent sources that can confirm Bryant's leadership roles and academic scholarship. (GPTZero gives this comment a 100% probability of being AI-generated.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:10, 30 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!} 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of men's footballers with the most official appearances (including youth internationals & reserves)

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

duplicate of the article List of men's footballers with the most official appearances, except it also goes against a consensus sought at that article to exclude youth football and non-competitive games. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Football. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If consensus goes against your wishes, the solution is not to maintain two alternative lists. Geschichte (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why we can't maintain this list. It's not a problem that multiple lists can exist in parallel. Yet, this list is very complete and include some importants matchs, although there are not considered at pro level. Maybe, some of players of this list are less reliable (Carmona, Bastock for example) but globally the list is reliable. Kind regards (excuse my english, I'm french) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOGIROX (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless WP:SPINOFF created by not liking consensus at the other page. Absolute nonsense to keep this. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is an expansion of the other list, and it is well-sourced. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a consensus reached on the original article to not include reserve team and youth team games, this was to align with the vast majority of sources which do not include such games. Creating a second list ignores the consensus which had been reached and creates the possibility of multiple parallel versions based on differing subjective interpretations. Football (unlike cricket and most US based sports) does not have a central statistical record which is why consensus and consistency is so important ColchesterSid (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delte - WP:POINTy spin-off which goes against all major sources in its scope (NB if by any chance it is kept, it should not have an ampersand in the title per MOS:AMPERSAND) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree entirely with ColchesterSid Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, we do not create duplicate lists when we don't like consensus. Giant Snowman 13:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We shouldn't include youth teams because those are less known than senior ones. Note to the "Keep" vote without signature: I don't meant to spread hatred, but if you excuse for your comment, I kindly encourage you not to reply on English WIkipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus. CNC (talk) 19:46, 29 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!} 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhvi Prachi

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

Got little coverage for some controversies but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Furthermore, they are known primarily for their controversial tweets/statements. However, they do not satisfy the WP:GNG either. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for mainspace. For now it fails WP:NPOL. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:37, 29 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!} 22:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi9 Ukraine

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

Fails the GNG and the company specific notability guideline. Created by a "Marketing and Social Media strategist". A redirect to Levi9 Global Sourcing is fine but I'm not sure that article meets the company notability guideline. Rolluik (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rolluik (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rolluik (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Company notability of the parent and Paul Schuyt appears questionable too. Found an article related to Prins Bernard from Quote (magazine). IgelRM (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blanked and redirected the parent company Levi9 Global Sourcing to Prince Bernard (he is a co-founder) and added this source, it is the only maybe independent one I have seen. I have proposed Paul Schuyt for deletion. Rolluik (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn’t find anything to establish notability. It’s possible that there might be sources in Ukrainian, however. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:02, 31 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!} 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olugbenro Oyekan

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO (no significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources afaics).
As for WP:NPROF, I think the only criterion that could potentially apply is criterion 6 (The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.), which (according to the notes for this criterion) may apply if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, but [l]esser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone (the same goes for an appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor). As stated in the article, the subject does seem to be the vice president of (and dean at) the International School of Management (ISM) Lagos (no Wikipedia article; official website), an accredited private business school. However, given that a brochure by and for the school ([49]) lists a president, I'm concluding that vice president is indeed not the top post, which is why I don't believe this criterion is satified, and thus I would argue that the subject fails WP:NPROF as well. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF and nothing to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are not able to fulfill the general notability criteria. Being a dean and vice president of an institution does not confer automatic notability for academics. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 03:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Tristancr (talk) 10:15, 25 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. The notability of this article subject doesn't seem to be in question and the fact that the subject no longer exists is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Any problems with NPOV or bias can be addressed through diligent and fair editing. It was unfortunate that the nominator effectively bludgeoned this discussion and cast baseless aspersions against editors whose opinions they disagreed with despite the fact that they themselves are a very new editor. But I'll add that since problems were pointed out in regards to this article, I hope that experienced editors can give it a thorough copy-editing to ensure it meets Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appin (company)

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)

Appin closed in 2013. The article is facing a string of changes where there may be a WP:SOCK (see latest changes). Delete according to WP:ATTACK which summarizes that the article has a denigrating purpose, rather than an informational one. WP:NPOV and WP:LBL, because the article is only about calmony even if it is quoted by notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I verified that the first deletion was met with a string of blocks, which is why decided to send an initial message to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, following which agreed to initiate these discussions directly.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As article creator; company clearly meets WP:GNG. If nom has WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV concerns, could those get discussed on the talk page before going to AfD? If there are WP:ATTACK or WP:NPOV issues on an article for a notable subject, the remedy is to address the issues on the page, not delete. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's contribution history demonstrates that this article cannot be remedy, because a string of possible WP:SOCK editors update the article against these policies. Obviously, meets WP:GNG but this is not enough for the article to be kept. Because this article does not describe the company and (only controversies and legal acts). Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which editors percisely are you calling possible WP:SOCKs? Regardless, even if you're right, can't we just remove whatever content they've added? NickCT (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AfD, which clearly shows the article meets WP:NORG. Deletion is not an appropriate solution for the concerns highlighted by the nominator. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it clearly meets WP:NORG with multiple significant in-depth and independent articles.
I don't think it's appropriate to call out particular accounts as socks -- that's for SPI -- but the article has been of particular interest to accounts with a short edit history. Certainly accounts like @NoWarNoPeace and @John Bukka took an interest in the article early in their editing careers and then ended up blocked. It's likely there are multiple-account editors active on the article now. But I've watchlisted it for some time and it seems editing has been on a reasonably healthy path - recently a new account removed what looked like a good cite, and another account put it back with an edit summary, nothing to see here. Oblivy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tristancr (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Delete according to WP: ATTACK" is total nonsense. Per WP: ATTACK, in order for this page to be deleted, the nominator would need to explain why there are no diffs that we can revert to. That's going to be an uphill battle, given that the current state of the article does not read like an attack page. The nominator has said themselves that WP: GNG is met, so there's nothing to discuss and the article should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or an article renaming, such as Appin hacking..... According to the delete nominator, I agree that this article is not informative, considering that the company is no longer active.--Bexaendos (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONE EVENT, Illegal conduct and failing WP:NORG. This company is only known for the single event of a legal challenge by its founders against Reuters which published an article the company founders deemed defamatory. There was no media notice of the company before the suit and certainly there will be no further media coverage of the company when the litigation ends as the company is now defunct. Though the sources in the article are WP:RS, most are tertiary sources reporting from the Reuters report not their own original reporting and cannot be substantially relied upon per WP: Tertiary Sources.

This also appears to breach WP: Illegal Conduct which states that “It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline”. The company would have zero notability if the sources arising from the alleged hacking operation are taken out. I will change my vote if sources that demonstrate that the company meets WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC without the use of the sources from the single event of the court case. Runmastery (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT applies to people, not organizations. Regarding WP:ILLCON, you are omitting the last part of that paragraph which says However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. Taking a look at WP:CRIME, we find that the perpetrators of a crime are eligible for a Wikipedia article if The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. This clearly applies in this case. According to this Reuters article, the targets of Appin included internationally prominent entities such as Boris Berezovsky, Mohamed Azmin Ali, Leonel Fernández, and the Pakistani and Chinese militaries. Astaire (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article discusses a lawsuit and other behavior aimed at Reuters and other reporting entities who covered its activities. The recent lifting of the injunction was written about.[50][51] And it continues [52] to be discussed.Oblivy (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a bad-faith nomination based on policy abuse. This is the second time this page has been nominated for deletion by someone with a handful of edits. This page has been the target of malicious edits, including the intentional removal of vital information in the guise of policy enforcement, sometimes by blocked sockpuppets (see the talk page for details). Recently, an Indian court ruled in favor of Reuters, reinstating the article [53] that Appin tried to bury by misrepresenting the facts. The court explicitly stated that Appin has no right to interfere with the journalistic process [54]. There seems to be a pattern here, with many articles exposing how Rajat Khare and Appin use heavy-handed tactics against publishers to suppress the truth—a few of which are cited on this article's page. The EFF has documented a campaign of intimidation and censorship by Rajat Khare and Appin, aimed at erasing stories about their mercenary hacking operations [55]. Furthermore, a recent investigation by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reveals a coordinated global effort by Rajat Khare and Appin to bully media outlets into removing their stories. [56], as well as coverage on their YouTube channel [57]. HARRISONSST (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)— HARRISONSST (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <- this comment was writting by the person who nominated this page for deletion and has been told to stop harassing editors. Normally, I don't respond to trolls, but he created his account just 2.5 months ago-right when the Indian court threw out Appin's lawsuit Special:Contributions/Dmitry_Bobriakov.[reply]

Checking the history of this editor, I realized that all its changes are only for Appin and all of them have been reverted. And the way he edits the article shows an interest in the article and a possible WP:SOCK.--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to say about what I wrote? You have nothing to say about the dozens and dozens of news organizations that called out Rajat Khare and Appin's antics? I realize that they generously provide employment opportunities to aspiring Wikipedia editors who misrepresent facts that are easy to verify, but the problem is they usually get caught in their own web of lies—the person who nominated this article for deletion the first time User:Metroick was blocked for sock puppetry. As I said, these things follow a pattern. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same person who has been desperately trying to whitewash this article for the past year. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- obviously meets WP:GNG, and the arguments of the nom are irrelevant, with other solutions available to address any concerns about editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the hacking activity of this company and the associated malware used was tracked by numerous security and threat intelligence firms around the world, including CrowdStrike, Sentinel One, Microsoft, Google/Mandiant, Cymmetria, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Qihoo 360 Security, Shadowserver, etc. Lippard (talk) Lippard (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The subject is still relevant due to recent legal lifting of injuctions and other legal ramifications. Furthermore the subject had a general historical impact on cyber security and is Notable for that per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In addition the proposal to delete the article for issues that could be resolved by editing is not in line with WP:ATD Espatie (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This message is exclusively for the editor who will close this nomination! The controversy of this article doesn't end there, because as far as I've checked, a number of editors have an obvious interest in the article because of this and I've notified that there is a risk for a WP:SOCK. This edit with comment we are so back, baby, is made by a UK editor, and another editor interested in UK politics (who has a few edits and has never participated in the deletion discussion). Another editor who miraculously after a while got activated and participated in the deletion discussion. Including this editor who is only interested in this article and his changes have all been canceled. I want to believe it's a coincidence, but I'm not sure in this. More recently the discussion has been labeled not a ballot, which certainly has place in this discussion (since it is trying in any way to keep the article and mass voting), without seeing the real problem of the article. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question the editor should be asking is why you, with a 2.5-month-old account and about 100 edits, are so desperate to delete this page—after the Reuters article came back up—that you would cast doubt on those participating in good faith, specially given the extensive history of Rajat Khare and Appin in burying the truth, as well as the fact that this deletion request is basically a bad-faith nomination rooted in policy abuse. Since you keep on mentioning sockpuppets, the editor should also consider the fact that the person who first nominated this article for deletion User:Metroick was blocked for sock puppetry, as well as the sockpuppets who have been attempting to remove vital information from the article for the past year. HARRISONSST (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very telling that you are focused on denigrating the contributions of other editors by calling people sockpuppets sans evidence, but you have made no effort whatsoever to address the Wikipedia policy issues that editors have raised in response to your AfD request. Please address the policy issues in question, rather than indulging in ad hominem comments in an attempt to discount input with which you disagree. Espatie (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the article seems to be too denigrating in its tone, then it is only a matter of its proper edition. Neither this issue nor the existence of the described company is a factor of the informative character, as long as it describes fact and also - as some people above noted - the controversy, in which Appin had been involved, has not ended. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources that establish notability. I’m actually baffled as to shy someone would nominate this. The article reads as pretty neutral and well-written to me, though it would benefit from expanding it to add detail of what they actually did, rather than just their litigious activities (are there possibly additional non-English language sources that would assist?). Either way, we do not delete articles with NPOV issues; we fix them. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you call notable only describe their litigious activities. Then I wonder how they vote so actively en masse (copy-paste) without anyone verifying the information. As you say other information needs to be added about the company (which generally doesn't exist), and all the sources and information are about their litigious activities! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does your interpretation of WP:ILLCON also cover civil litigation brought by the company? Oblivy (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. As for "The article is facing a string of changes" perhaps the article should be protected (I take no position on that) but in any case there are other ways to handle that than deletion. Kingdon (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not on the basis of nomination reason because articles are not deleted for WP:NPOV, they are edited and cleaned. And for the proposal that this article constitute libel and should be deleted, that reasoning does not apply because if anyone should sue for libel it should be the news organisations that published the story not Wikipedia that cited those sources. Before search showed that this was an obscure company pre Reuters publication and had nothing that could be used to prove its existence. It is the subsequent litigation which followed that brought it to public attention. I support the argument by Runmastery that if WP:ILLCON is applied to this article, it would not stand. Most of the sources are to the Reuters reporting and the continuing ligation. The alleged victims of the hacking are notable as listed in the Reuters reporting, but the report did not give details of how they were hacked, it is only passing mentions. None of the alleged victims made public complaints of being hacked or filed any lawsuit against the company and no other news organisations reported the hacking other than Reuters. WP:ILLCON is applicable here because the alleged victims were not widely reported by other news organisations. And I see that none of the victim is listed or discussed in this article. There is no wide coverage of the hacking and its victims in multiple sources other than Reuters reporting. There are tons of civil cases out there and this is one of such. Nothing special in this. Seminita (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on misinformation.

--

1. User: Runmastery's argument misrepresents WP:ILLCON, as the comments have pointed out [58]. Specifically, it omits the part that states: However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME.

--

2. Regarding your notability claim that there is no wide coverage beyond the Reuters [59] report, A LOT OF reputable sources have documented Rajat Khare and Appin's mercenary hacking operations: The New Yorker [60], Wired [61], Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [62], RSF's YouTube channel [63], EFF [64], Dark Reading Archived [65], Freedom of the Press [66], Columbia Journalism Review [67], The Wire Archived [68], The Daily Beast [69], The Times [70], Lawfare [71], and many, many more.

--

3. Not that it makes the slightest different to whether the Appin page should stay or not, there are articles that provide details of how Rajat Khare and Appin's mercenary hacking operations operated. Here is one from Security Week that I found with a casual Internet search [72]. SentinelOne also published an article [73]. It's been temporarily removed due to heavy-handed intimidation tactics, but is still available on archive.org [74].

--

4. Your statement that none of Rajat Khare and Appin's victims made complaints of being hacked, and that none are listed or discussed in the article, is both false and irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think you've even read the Reuter's article and you are just throwing a bunch of random issues at the page, hoping something sticks. The Reuters article [75] explicitly mentions a father-and-son duo—Peter and Stevie Hargitay—who detected a cyber intrusion and filed a criminal complaint with Swiss authorities. Their hired expert traced the hack to a server near Zurich, with billing records identifying Rajat Khare as the client. They claimed that their personal and business data had been compromised as part of a targeted hacking campaign. Other articles also document Rajat Khare and Appin's victims, but I've wasted enough time on this reply. HARRISONSST (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a special account created for this article, where all edits are exclusive to the article. You say you don't have time to edit, but funny, huh? Whose WP:SOCK are you? Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re seeing SOCKS everywhere, you might want to consult a psychiatrist—logical arguments clearly won't help. HARRISONSST (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Appin page itself starts by explaining how the hacking was done. I forgot to mention this earlier but remembered it when rereading my reply. A 2013 report by Shadowserver Foundation [76]. This means the person didn't even read the article. HARRISONSST (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is obviously notable. If we delete articles that received unwanted edits, we'd have no articles on controversial topics whatsoever. I've added the article to my watchlist and will protect if necessary. Brandon (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 This message is exclusively for the editor who will close this nomination! Once I check which editors are participating in the discussion (which is voted on en masse, possibly being guest editors in an organized way). The following accounts [77], [78], [79] all mentioned accounts about bluesky and mastodon (which again I don't think is a coincidence). The identical after a long period of time being inactive (now with all of you suddenly back to participate in discussions). Another editor who has no connection with the topic and has not participated in any discussion in general (being inactive for a while and now suddenly active). I do not judge and offend anyone because everyone is free to edit and contribute in their own way. But neither those who participate in this discussion have the right to fool an entire community. Because it is obvious that someone as organized as possible is contributing to this discussion. I hope that in the near time other editors with special rights will join to monitor this case! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are not helpful, please stop. User:Cloventt has ~100 edits in December 2024 alone. An editor having a Bluesky or Mastadon link on their user page is not relevant to a deletion discussion. If you have evidence of sock puppeting or canvasing take it to WP:SPI or WP:ANI and keep the deletion discussion about the merits of the article. Brandon (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's now adding notes under other editor's signatures to undermine them: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Appin_(company)_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1266391108. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who told you that it’s okay to call someone a sockpuppet just because they did something you didn’t like? As Brandon says, go to WP: SPA if you seriously feel that there is sockpuppeting involved. It is a serious accusation. Writing “This message is exclusively meant for the closer” is not a free pass to act however you please and does not shield you from criticism. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major coverage that clearly demonstrates the company meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be well covered by sources (which I haven't checked myself, but it's not the suitability of the sources that's at issue here, if that is a problem it can be always brought up separately), and documents something that has been reported on, so far looking like events that happened. There is no such thing as "it's out of business, so let's delete it", otherwise AfDs on e.g. Enron and Watergate would have been fair game, not to mention extinct species. (One could argue part of the purpose of an Encyclopedia without hard small content limits would be to include that knowledge?)
Lastly, and focusing on this discussion request as presented, I'm wondering if the purpose of the mentioned policy is even to include/allow this sort of article, WP:ATTACK seems to be written in a more ambiguous tone regarding non-person subjects, but G10 seems to be focused on people, besides libel (which I think this can't be if it's fully sourced?) or legal threats (which does suggest the intent of that section is completely different from this, it suggests it's more about spam pages that only have insults or threats against a person, and not articles that document events, with sources?). njsg (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where that language got inserted. Both G10 (at the time and now) and the rest of the page IMHO seem person-oriented. Some of what they did is legitimate according to the article, and some of what they have done is either public record or has been reported on in secondary sources. I agree with you this isn't an attack page at all. Perhaps efforts would be better spent finding positive secondary coverage of the company to balance out the negative impressions. Oblivy (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability and has decent sources. I’d rather it be improved than removed. Ckoerner (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No substantive case for community action that is (even at first glance) valid under the deletion policy. The question of ILLCON is interesting, but the supporting arguments have no basis. For example, sources are misidentified as tertiary, apparently based on an erroneous WP:LINKSINACHAIN analysis (As an aside, for article content, might note that investigative reports and breaking news are primary sources as defined by policy). A later claim that victims were not widely reported by other news organisations is, as a matter of policy, irrelevant, as there is no basis to require such in PAG, nor any requirement for coverage about how hacking occurred. The claim of certainly [...] no further media coverage falls under WP:CRYSTAL/WP:NTEMP. I could go on, but the delete rationales seem completely defective given the sheer number of significant errors, and brings to mind the survival of certain forms of precipitation in infernal conditions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not particularly against keeping this, but the WP:ILLCON and the tertiary sources issues raised above are valid. The nom’s WP:ATTACK is incorrect, but WP:INHERITORG comes to my mind. Some of the sources referenced as establishing notability of the company are purely focused on civil case proceedings and giving passing mentions to the hacking which is the focal subject of the article. There is not sufficient significant coverage of the company itself imo. Hmr (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Appin page itself starts by explaining how the hacking was done. A 2013 report by Shadowserver Foundation [80]. There is also extensive coverage on how the hacking was done, but it's not on the page yet. Here is one from SentinelOne [81], one from Security Week [82], and one from Dark Reading [83]. HARRISONSST (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP: ILLCON R3DSH1FTT (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a small pace training institute which was closed 11 years ago, has no relevance to make article after defunctioning of 11 years. WP:ILLCON is valid for this article. DanikS88 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic of deleting pages on things that died a long time ago means that we should also wipe Pan Am, Lehman Brothers, Woolworths, Compaq, and Blockbuster from Wikipedia. Even if that was cool, the coverage on Appin and Rajat Khare seems to be pretty big and pretty recent. I dunno. Reuters [84], The New Yorker [85], Wired #1 [86], Wired #2 [87], Reporters Without Borders (RSF) [88], RSF's YouTube channel [89], EFF [90], Dark Reading Archived [91], Freedom of the Press [92], Columbia Journalism Review [93], The Wire Archived [94], Times of India Archived [95], The Bureau of Investigative Journalism Archived [96], The Daily Beast [97], Sunday Times UK Archived [98], NDTV [99], Risky Biz News [100] Lawfare [101], Techdirt [102], Citizen Lab [103], Gotham City [104], Intelligence Online [105], Timeline [106], Paperjam [107], Behind the Bastards [108], Tribune de Geneve [109], SRF Archived [110], Shadowserver Foundation [111], SentinelOne Archived [112], Security Week [113], Dark Reading Archived [114], and many, many more. HARRISONSST (talk) 16:25, 31 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. It seems, given all of the sources shared in this discussion, that this subject has been adequately covered in reliable sources. User:Photos of Japan could you bring the sources you mention here into the article? I think it might discourage a quick repeat visit to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (trend)

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

Contains little to no reliable sourcing and was created as part of a Wiki Education assignment. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage exists, across multiple major outlets across the world. That it was part of a Wiki Education assignment is entirely unrelated to notability; the fact we're getting articles for subjects that are probably of more interest to younger readers is a credit to that project. :JeffUK 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus would be on you to locate some of those sources and to ensure they are reliable. There's a Cosmopolitan article and a Glam article, but they aren't much. Ornov Ganguly TALK 14:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly some sources available CBC News, Michigan Daily, Health digest . Honestly, I got burned trying to find more, clicked on some magazine that tried to install ALL the viruses on my laptop, so I'm letting this one lie for now! JeffUK 08:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC and Michigan Daily articles are 404'd without Internet Archive backups. If the CBC one is what we already have in the article, it's passable, but the Health Digest one just summarizes the Refinery29 article. It's hardly four paragraphs long. The trouble with most of these sources is that they are trying to capitalise on a microtrend. There is no longevity here to make it deserving of an article. It would be better served as part of another article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 13:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than for deletion, this could be moved into an Internet trends category. There are definitely credible sources that mention this and to suggest that it had a slew of articles and even mentioned in academic books only in a certain time frame would disqualify a lot of articles on Wikipedia. raisecain (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That specific discussion is happening here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_aesthetic Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a brief blast of coverage in 2021, with the CBC article in the article and this [115], [116]... I'm not showing any lasting effect of the "Trend". Could be briefly mentioned in an article about internet memes/trends in 2021 or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Popular culture, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stylist (magazine) had an article mentioning that videos with the "that girl" tag got 2 billion views on Tiktok. More recently, I found a Her Campus article from this year titled Is “That Girl” Still a Trend? which states

The “that girl” trend transitioned into the “vanilla girl aesthetic” with warmer scents and colors. Some still refer to the clean aesthetic as a “that girl” aesthetic but “that girl” aesthetic branched into “vanilla girl aesthetic”, “baddie aesthetic”, the “night luxe aesthetic”, etc.

Which would seem to imply the trend has largely evaporated into subsequent trends. However they later state:

Recently, this trend has gotten a lot of heat for being a part of the larger trend of toxic productivity and “hustle culture”

Which would seem to imply that people are still talking about it. The section links to the Aesthetics wiki (no way to know how recent) and 2 year old Topix (website) article which criticizes it while also stating that it seems here to stay.

One TikTok trend that seems to be here to stay? “That Girl.” While on the surface it’s all about being your best self mentally, physically, and professionally, therapists say this idea is actually toxic—here’s why.

A UVU Review article this year compares it to the It girl trend.

Gotham (magazine) did an interview with TikToker Kaeli Mae where she stated:

Definitely the clean girl aesthetic. Even back when I started four years ago, it was referred to as like “That Girl” and they still refer to it as that, but I feel like the trend of “That Girl” or “Clean Girl” is always there. I think it will always be there. It just maybe has different names at some points, but it all revolves around the same aesthetic.

InStyle had an article this year about "clean girl" aesthetic which supports an unclear relationship to "that girl".

Maximal in regards to their career goals ("That Girl"), the clean girl is minimalist when it comes to beauty and fashion

Elle (India) has an article from this year that also ambiguously equivocates "clean girl" with "that girl".

The reason I support keeping the article is because it is part of a significant and enduring women's self-improvement and aesthetics trend that is ambiguously defined leaving no clear merge target. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the CBC article [117], for what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 24 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 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkey. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: only immediate news coverage, no lasting effects or in-depth analysis. The event is already mentioned at Turkish Airlines § Incidents and accidents and Atatürk Airport § Accidents and incidents; there's slightly more detail at the latter page that could potentially be added to the former, but I don't think there's anything further here that deserves a merge !vote. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Has no continued coverage. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atatürk Airport#Accidents and incidents, which as mentioned references this incident, and has the more extensive mention of it of the two pages mentioning it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, so it has no continued coverage. TG-ARTICLE Well, if you want to talk to me, then why don't you click this button? There's also my contributions. 21:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Protoeus (talk) 18:54, 31 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.

Amaire Johnson

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

Another case of a songwriter with prolific credits with notable musicians, but who has received little to no coverage of their own. In this case, there is that Visionary Artist Magazine (source I've never heard of and cannot speak to its reliability) piece, though I can only see the first paragraph of it for some reason. But that alone is not a sufficient amount of coverage, and the rest is just Johnson's name being brought up in the context of credits on other artists' songs without any in-depth discussion of Johnson's contributions. None of this applies to NBAND's standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Associated with major acts, but nothing strictly about this individual. The NPR and CBC articles are about different people. I'm not seeing enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the "different people" the NPR and CBC articles discuss are the two acts that employ Amaire Johnson as a music director: rappers Big Sean and Ab-soul. The CBC article confirms that Amaire was signed to Big Sean's label once Big Sean began to separate himself from Kanye West and establish an independent label imprint, and the NPR articles reveal that Amaire was tasked with music direction and/or performance for both rappers on their respective acclaimed Tiny Desk appearances. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the point Oaktree is making is that the subjects of those articles are Big Sean and Ab-Soul, not Amaire Johnson, and that Johnson is only mentioned once by name in the CBC article and only in the credits for the NPR performances. These are passing mentions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show that the subject is notable. Esti92 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way, especially that contradicts what Oaktree and I wrote above? Note that no additional sources have been added since I initiated this discussion, just Category:Year of birth missing (living people). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Took a little break for Christmas and just found out that you nominated this article for deletion. Added a few additional supporting sources, more categories, and made some needed copyedit "tweaks". I'll keep you posted on future changes. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second ever edit of Esti92. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow analysis of recent edits
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources added since the launch of this discussion are a YouTube interview (reliability? certainly a primary source) and the "Best Produced Track" designation from XXL (not even a complete sentence of prose). I do not think the recent edits bring this any closer to notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."). He's written four songs that charted, one of which was a Top Ten Billboard song and was nominated for a Grammy. Bearian (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that section applies to songwriters – note that the list, starting at "this category includes", does not mention songwriters or producers, only performance roles – and you should be looking at COMPOSER instead. In that case, I believe only #1 applies, and only meeting one criteria while still not meeting GNG does not convince me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere I believe #4 would apply as well, no? Clearly he won the ASCAP Award for a song he co-wrote, composed, and co-produced ("Bounce Back") -- a Top 10 Hit charting in numerous markets -- being one of the 20 most played (radio, video, sync placements, streaming) and performed (touring) songs for the year with key contributors from the specific songwriting association. All ASCAP writers battle yearly to be recognized by their songwriting/publishing body via securing lucrative song placements, and very few receive recognition. It was also Grammy nominated, albeit in a category that celebrates songwriters with a Grammy certificate if nominated / Grammy winner's certificate if successful. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did forget about the ASCAP Award, that is a fair point. I'm not sure about the Grammy because, like you said, it's usually only the artists who receive recognition for it. I'm still concerned with letting a GNG miss go, and I think the ASCAP win can (and should, regardless of this discussion's outcome) be mentioned in the song's article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Petrey

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

Mildly promotional biography of a music marketer who fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG; moved to mainspace after being declined at AFC. She seems to have received some coverage for a past connection to Britney Spears, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from Spears. The coverage of this connection is also tabloid coverage (Mirror, Daily Soap Dish, People), which is disallowed for establishing notability per WP:SBST. The remaining sources are limited to:

WP:ROUTINE coverage in WP:TRADES publication MusicRow ([118], [119], [120], [121], [122])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([123], [124], [125], [126], [127])
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([128], [129])
Promotional material like coverage in Forbes of a Forbes-sponsored panel discussion ([130])

As for her 30 Under 30 listings ([131], [132]), there is no consensus that these are the kinds of awards that would make someone independently notable under WP:ANYBIO. (The Forbes 30 under 30 is "awarded" to 1,230 people each year across geographies and industries so is not a rare honor.) I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Kentucky. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a glorified CV. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) striking locked user's comment. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe Cassie Petrey's Wikipedia page meets the notability criteria for individuals in the field of business and entertainment. Her contributions to the industry have been covered in notable publications such as Forbes, Billboard, and Rolling Stone, showcasing her influence and accomplishments.

Key points supporting her notability include:

Leadership in innovative digital marketing campaigns for globally known artists, including Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys.
Recognition in authoritative industry outlets and her inclusion in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list.
Active contributions to discussions about artist-fan engagement in the digital age through interviews and articles.

The page provides verifiable sources documenting her work and impact, aligning with Wikipedia's content policies. Deleting this page would remove a valuable figure in the modern entertainment and marketing industries. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@24eeWikiUser Did you use ChatGPT or a similar program to generate this text? GPTZero gives this a 100% probability of being WP:AIGENERATED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Leadership in digital marketing campaigns" is promotional language, I'm sure this is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: News items are about Spears and her social media, not particularly about this person. Outside of the Spears items, i don't see notability. The 30 under 30 lists don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most coverage is not from reliable sources and the article is overall written like a promotional piece. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:54, 26 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 Cossacks: European Wars. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks (video games series)

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

No clear evidence this is independently notable as a series or passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cossacks: European Wars as an ATD. It's unnecessary that the games be lumped like this, but I think the first game in the series is a fine target. Conyo14 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cossacks: European Wars. This article is currently extremely short on content and only relies on 3 sources from Metacritic; but that's just the way it is at the moment.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 27 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) 16:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Jones

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet the requirements at WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. I am not finding enough sources that are independent of the subject and amount to significant coverage. Almost all of the references on this article are just routine match coverage. May just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Has not achieved anything worth having an article for. Only non-routine match report coverage is based primarily on his sister and notability is not inherited. Shrug02 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:NTENNIS and notability is not inherited from family members. May meet notability in the future should they succeed in their career, but certainly not yet.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:56, 25 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 00:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

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

He got the attention in news media when he was allegedly shot by notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi gang and he was also a president of state level organisation i.e., Shree Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena. But we do not create pages for presidents of caste based state organisations like Rajasthan Jat Mahasabha or Rajput Karni Sena of Rajasthan. If you see the sources then in almost all sources it is about “he shot by bishnoi gang”. I think he fails WP:GNG because he got attention only due to single event of being shot by alleged notorious gangster. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to no participation in debate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage of the subject in either English or Hindi centers exclusively around his murder and is concentrated within the time frame of December 2023 to January 2024. The subject would fall under WP:1E, which states that "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:29, 30 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 Gravitoelectromagnetism. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitomagnetic

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

Stub created replacing a redirect. There is already a section in Gravitoelectromagnetism, pages Gravitomagnetic time delay and Gravitomagnetic clock effect as well as other mentions. Plus, while this page claims to be general, it really only describes the work of Ken Nordtvedt. I cannot justify this page existing, everything is elsewhere, I don't see how it adds anything useful. Also, why does the main section include Redaction in the title, a person attack? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main section Kenneth Nordvedt Redaction is a straight copy from the page Kenneth Nordvedt. There is also another page with, it appears, the same information at Nordtvedt effect. Probably some more deletion/merging needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cut-and-pasted content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notiying WP:WikiProject Physics, since Article Alerts missed this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revert to the redirect. The Gravitoelectromagnetism seems adequate for this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surplus to requirements. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gravitoelectromagnetism – Title violates WP:NOUN, since "gravitomagnetic" is an adjective though this does not apply to redirects, so redirecting seems suitable. Also, any possible content under the name "gravitomagnetism" belongs in the article Gravitoelectromagnetism. After the justified removal of content, there is nothing to merge, except (possibly) the reference. —Quondum 00:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Edited —Quondum 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just make it a redirect again. There's no need of AfD for that. Tercer (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no objections to changing it back to a redirect. I will note that a revert to a redirect has to be considered as contested, so to me an AfD concensus appears most appropriate -- no edit wars of course.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a discussion is necessary, but not an AfD. Now it's too late, but in such cases it's better to open a discussion in the talk page of the article and notify WT:PHYSICS. Tercer (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect doesn't seem necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is a plausible {{R from adjective}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:19, 30 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) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Yahya al-Kharega

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be a particularly notable ambassador. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT (merely an essay, I know!) says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. Tgvarrt (talk) 05:55, 31 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 Mexican Figure Skating Championships. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Mexican Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Mexican Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Mexico. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Mexican Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable competitions that are poorly sourced too. All should be deleted. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Not understanding why the nom could've just done this instead of having these articles stuck for a week in limbo outside of airing grievances about tropical nations having figure skating competitions despite not being in a position to medal in the worlds/Olympics. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mexican Figure Skating Championships: Non-notable competitions which don't meet the WP:GNG or any other guideline. No issues with the nom bringing these to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 01:39, 31 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 New Zealand Figure Skating Championships. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2000 New Zealand Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to New Zealand Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and New Zealand. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, New Zealand Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Not understanding why the nom could've just done this instead of having these articles stuck for a week in limbo outside of airing grievances about tropical nations having figure skating competitions despite not being in a position to medal in the worlds/Olympics. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 24 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 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mindinventory

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

Non-notable company. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. Also promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest on how to improve this as a writer. Samarpatel (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relies entirely on primary sources for details, and no secondary sources exist with any depth of coverage. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paid placement. Fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant news coverage. The current sources are press releases, and own website or non-significant sources.Shinadamina (talk) 09:28, 31 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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harshada Pathare

AfDs for this article:

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

The article on Harshada Pathare fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors and filmmakers. The references cited are primarily from non-independent or low-quality sources, such as News24, Yahoo Finance, and promotional platforms like the Tagore International Film Festival’s own website. These sources lack the depth and reliability required to establish significant coverage or independent notability. Additionally, the article has a promotional tone, which violates Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion. The subject's notable achievements, including awards and books, are not adequately supported by independent, verifiable sources.

There is also a possible Conflict of Interest, as this subject has a significant creation and deletion history dating back to 2018, with five drafts and one main space article being deleted under G11. It is unlikely that this repeated effort to create the article is coincidental, especially considering the subject's limited notability as evidenced by their sparse Google presence. This raises questions about why multiple attempts have been made to establish this page, despite a lack of substantial independent coverage.

Upon further investigation, the creator of this page appears to have a pattern of creating articles with extensive personal data, often citing only one or two references. This raises concerns about verifiability and how the creator is obtaining such detailed information when it is not publicly available. These issues, combined with the lack of reliable, independent sources and a promotional tone, warrant deletion of this article for failing to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete All the sources in this article run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA - unless some better sources can be found that confirm notability we should probalby delete. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided for Harshada Pathare are from reliable and trusted portals supporting the notability. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:NEWSORGINDIA inducates that, as they regularly do PR pieces for undisclosed pay most Indian news publications are insufficient to establish notability. So far there are only Indian news sources and primary sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the subject but NEWSORGINDIA does not say that exactly. Indian sources are perfectly acceptable if the media outlet that published them is reliable and they seem independent enough. -Mushy Yank. 02:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline notability. seems pretty clear to me. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s pretty clear, although incomplete; but that’s NOT exactly what you said. And that does NOT contradict what I said. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources listed mention/review any of her works, most of which seems to be vanity/self published, hence fails WP:POET. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info Indian sources are generally acceptable as long as the media outlet is considered reliable and the reporting appears independent and well-sourced. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this info and RS are keepable or notable according to WP guidelines StoryReader1999 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck vote by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly do they show that she passes WP:POET, which would seem to be the most relevant? Spike 'em (talk) 21:42, 31 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 14:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Khoshbakht

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, this was deleted once but recreated with more or less the same thing. I have to repeat what I wrote first time. the article just has a bunch of refs without much to say, from what I found he is a former world youth/cadet (not junior) champion back in 1996 but that's not enough to make him notable. he never won anything in junior or senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG in ~~WP:NATH~~ WP:SPORTCRIT. No WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is entirely trivial in nature. Not even one example of significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 26 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 14:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagini Juridice

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

First, some context: this article forms part of a WP:Walled garden created by User:ATuschinski about his family members. The article on the founder of the journal that forms the subject of this nomination just got torched. Second, the case for deletion is straightforward: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Almost every citation is to the journal itself. The one significant exception, the article by Mircea Duțu, devotes approximately half a line to this publication: see here, top of page 220. There is nothing to establish encyclopedic notability here. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not satisfy WP:NJOURNAL. The article is a blatant WP:COATRACK created by the promotional ATuschinski account to allow further lionisation of his non-notable ancestors and their run-of-the-mill endeavours. Axad12 (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took a look at this article yesterday in light of the other Tuschinski family-history articles and I almost nominated it for deletion myself. It's clear that this is what is what some call a "walled-garden" of articles and that it is an effort to promote the Tuschinski family, as well as their works; WP:COI and WP:NPOV apply to this orchestration of family-history articles. No disrespect is intended towards the family itself, however Wikipedia is not the right venue for this. The creator of these article should please consider setting up a personal website for this, or using social media or venues like Ancestry.com instead. As stated in the nomination, the article is essentially self-sourced to the journal that was founded and was edited by a Tuschinski); the article was created by a family member who also wrote a self-published book on the founder. Lots of connections here. The journal does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NJOURNAL either; journals do not have inherent notability, nor do they inherit notability from those who write for them, nor those who are written about in the journal, nor those who publish them. A BEFORE search does not find independent significant coverage in reliable sources about the journal itself. Netherzone (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. Tgvarrt (talk) 14:15, 31 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.

Amanpulo

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

The resort which covers Pamalican island fails WP:GNG. Only sources are from travel guides. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and Islands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pamalican. I don't think it makes sense to have two separate articles about the resort and the island when they both occupy the same area. —seav (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pamalican per the same reason as Seav's. Though it got me thinking, are both subjects (the resort and the island) notable enough to have an article? AstrooKai (Talk) 08:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The island itself meets WP:GEONATURAL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts worth merging, overlapping subjects with a stub each. CMD (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pamalican per above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep The article has issues but the resort in its own right is notable. Among others, it won an award seven times in a row, is covered in trade publications (also this one), has been written about in lifestyle magazines (also this one), and was even listed in the Michelin Guide. Now I think we need to clearly delineate the two as the island itself is also notable, but let's not jump the gun here and presume the resort itself isn't notable when it is. The better question to ask is whether there should be one article or two. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be one article, the topics hugely overlap and have just a few paragraphs each. CMD (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not try and treat the articles as static, please. Granted they haven't been edited since this AfD started, but it's not like the articles can be expanded so as to justify the existence of two articles, no? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said treats them as static. Anyone could expand any article at any time, and split a developed subarticle at any time. CMD (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that in this case where there are two articles, if the intention is to develop separate articles when there are enough sources, why merge them in the first place? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a more complete and informative experience for readers now, instead of not doing this for no reason other than some uncommitted future hypothetical that could happen in that future anyway. CMD (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a large number of sources that discuss Amanpulo the resort. There is enough information for a standalone article about Amanpulo's history, accommodations, amenities, and activities. Amanpulo began its history in 1993.
The island of Pamalican has a long history before that. Its early history: "The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back." It "was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity". It was a family-run coconut plantation until the early 1990s. There is likely enough information for two standalone articles. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Sky Harbor. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. The fact that the resort is coterminous with the island is my concern. So it can be discussed in either of their talk pages. SBKSPP (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Robles, Marissa (2008-11-29). "'Amanpulo had a spotlight over it!'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020081129e4bt00063.
  The article notes: "Before you start believing that the world spins in a hopeless whirl, think of Amanpulo. It is surely one adventure on your ‘101 Things to Do Before You Whine.' Experiencing this marvel of an island on the Sulu Sea, in the island group of Cuyo in Palawan, leaves one in a state of curious wonder, with nary a care for worrisome political and economic issues and petty personal upheavals. ... Consistent with all the Aman resorts worldwide, Amanpulo in Palawan embraces the cultural and natural landscapes it is set in. In the interiors, one notes the materials of clay, wood and bamboo. On the beach, the barbecue lighting uses baskets. The staff's uniform speaks of adapting to the culture, too. The marine sanctuary is pristine and free from garbage. The quality of the sand is consistent throughout the island of Pamalican, Amanpulo's home. Environment ranks high in Amanpulo's priorities. The vermi culture project, which recycles organic material into fertilizer, aims to give more jobs to residents of neighboring islands who produce fresh organic vegetables for guests. There's also the partnership with the Soriano Foundation in outreach programs on nearby Manamoc Island, where most of Amanpulo's workforce lives."
2. Lugo, Leotes Marie T. (2003-08-15). "Weekender - Travel & Tourism Ahhh... manpulo (a.k.a. lifestyle of the rich and famous)". BusinessWorld. Factiva BSWRLD0020030815dz8f0003h.
  The article notes: "I was dreaming and I didn't want to wake up! I was in Amanpulo - that super expensive high-end resort somewhere in Palawan that has hosted Hollywood stars, super models and the likes of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Daryl Hannah, Robert de Niro and, if rumors were to be believed, Michael Jackson. It's a place I've only heard of when talking about the lifestyles of the rich and famous, which definitely is way out of my league, and actually stepping into the island seemed surreal. ... We made a brief stop in the clubhouse restaurant and bar, perhaps the heart of the resort. The clubhouse had an Oriental motif adorned by coconut shell tables, rattan chairs from Cebu and oriental wooden ornaments. It also houses the resort boutique and library, where guests can borrow books, magazines and even digital video discs. ... Amanpulo, consistent with its image as a private, secluded resort, only has 40 casitas in hillside and beach-side settings. Each casita can accommodate a maximum of three adults and two children below 12 years old. ... Most of the resort's guests are Europeans, Japanese and Hong Kong expatriates."
3. Matheson, Veronica (2005-06-12). "Luxuriate in Filipino island life". Sunday Herald Sun. p. 1. Factiva SUHERS0020050611e16c00084.
  The article notes: "Their sea "christening" is at Amanpulo (peaceful island), 300km south of the Philippines' capital, Manila, where guests -- no question you need to be wealthy to stay here -- have time for caring and sharing. ... The island is car-free, but each casita (bungalow) has a gas-powered golf cart for guests to move around the island. And while it is possible to circle the island by cart, most guests opt to explore via the beach, barefoot in the sand. ... Amanpulo, recently named the world's top luxury resort by a British travel guide, is one of the prized jewels in the Aman crown. ... Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994. The 40 casitas, in hillside and beachside settings, are modelled loosely on the Philippine bahay kubo (village home). Inside the casitas every attention is given to detail, from pebble-washed walls to coconut shell tables, rustic palm baskets, king-size beds and roomy marble bathrooms. Outdoor decks have cushioned sun lounges and hammocks swing from palm trees. ... And because of its remoteness, Amanpulo generates its own power, treats its own sewage, recycles scrap metal, creates compost for reforestation, has a desalination plant and an airfield."
4. Chua-Go, Ingrid (2010-04-04). "Amanpulo-heaven on earth". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020100405e64400005.
  The article notes: "If this is the first time you've heard of Amanpulo (which I highly doubt), let me tell you that this world-class resort nestled in the secluded and private Pamalican Island, Palawan, is one of the tropical havens favored by Hollywood royalty.But don't expect to be bumping into them, though, as the very reason for their visiting the resort is Amanpulo's über-discreet policy toward its guests. Even at full occupancy, you will hardly bump into anyone. ... What I truly enjoyed about Amanpulo's dining experience is that you will often bump into the island's F&B director Harish Nair, who never fails to greet each diner to ask about the food. And for dinner, there's Lagoon Club located on the other side of the island, which serves Vietnamese food, and again Beach Club, which serves Spanish food. I highly recommend the paella and the fideua. If you want, you can also ask the island's restaurant to prepare you a beachside dinner complete with bonfire! ... You can also explore the island, which is what we decided to do the next day, after another snorkeling trip. A brief but leisurely 10-minute walk on the beach from my casita led me to the island's tip, where a sandbar stretched out into the crystal-clear waters. This sandbar would have been the most ideal place to get a nice tan and a refreshing swim during the earlier hours of the day."
5. Kurosawa, Susan (2010-08-06). "Amanpulo". Wish. The Australian. Factiva NLWISH0020100805e6860000k.
  The article notes: "This is Amanpulo, an exclusive resort on Pamalican Island in the southwest of The Philippines, part of the Cuyo group. Opened by Singapore-based Amanresorts group in 1993, everything here is about the water; the nearest snorkelling spot is so close that it's simply dubbed House Reef, there are picnic sites from which you can don snorkel gear and stride off into gardens of clams. At the southern tip there's a channel of water known as Shark's Playground but, as guests are calmly reassured, these are happy little reef sharks. Still, you might prefer to observe their sinister shapes from one of Amanpulo's boats, zooming over schools of batfish in protected waters. Complimentary aquatic activities include sailing, kayaking and windsurfing; on the easy-catch menu are snapper, grouper, wahoo, mackerel, sweetlip, bonito and (for near-instant sashimi) tuna. ... Everyone's talking about The go-ahead philosophy of Amanresorts. After a lull early last decade, the group is steaming ahead with openings, particularly in China and India. Amanpulo is not the most glamorous of the range but it's arguably one of the friendliest and most fun. The Filipino staff bring an air of fiesta to proceedings. But it all runs like clockwork, too - leave your golf buggy casually parked and when you return it will be precisely positioned, with replenished bottled water."
6. Hwang, You-mee (2004-07-09). "Do everything, or nothing at all: Island resort on Sulu Sea offers the ultimate in luxury". The Korea Herald. Factiva KORHER0020040709e0790000s.
  The article notes: "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993 by Amanresort, which operates similar resorts around the world. An assistant offers a cold towel so you can freshen up, and after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house. The buggy is your means of transportation throughout your stay at the resort. You're given a turtle-shaped key holder that comes with a key to your house and another for the buggy, as well as a map of the island. There are 40 individual guest houses dotted throughout the island: 29 on the beach, seven on the hillside and four in treetops. Treetop and hillside accommodations give you a spectacular view of the island and the surrounding Sulu Sea, especially the two deluxe hillside cabins. ... Amanpulo also has more than a handful of great scuba diving spots for both novice and experienced divers. Equipment and lessons from skilled instructors are offered at the Dive Shop. Children ages 8 and up can also learn scuba diving in the pool. You can also walk around the island's perimeter, which takes about 90 minutes."
7. "King of your island". Mint. 2011-03-25. Factiva HNMINT0020110326e73p0002t.
  The article notes: "Home to Amanpulo, the Aman Resorts' lone foray in the Philippines, Pamalican Island is a private island 300km south-west of Manila. The location, in the Sulu Sea, was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity. Today, it is one of the most secluded luxury locations in Asia, and provides an otherworldly privacy worth flying halfway across the world for. The only way to get there is the Amanpulo's own turboprop. A hangar at Manila airport hides the Amanpulo's dedicated lounge, and the journey-and the attentive, invisible service one expects of a hotel of this calibre-begins there. Riding in the 19-seat plane across the seas to the Amanpulo's private airstrip, you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas for as long as you're there. Instead of beach huts, your nights are spent in large casitas, modelled after local village homes, either right on the beach or perched among the trees on the hills. Each casitas comes with its own chef and maid to look after your culinary and other daily needs, and with a buggy so that you can explore the island."
8. Noone, Richard (2014-10-12). "Fantasy island a divine reality". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Operated by luxury group Aman Resorts, Amanpulo is on Pamalican Island, a relative speck in the Cuyo Archipelago of the Philippines. The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back. In 1967, one of the Philippines’ wealthiest families, the Sorianos of San Miguel Brewery fame, discovered it while cruising aboard the motor yacht Seven Seas. ... The family partnered with Aman Resorts and the first villas opened to guests in 1993."
9. Nicholson, Sarah (2011-04-02). "In the Lap of Luxury". The Advertiser. ProQuest 859717468.
  The article notes: "I am staying at the Amanpulo resort on Pamalican, one of the 1768 islands in the undeveloped Palawan Provence, 350km south of Manila. ... Amanpulo, the boutique resort that occupies all of Pamalican Island, is a 60-minute charter flight from Manila, and a haven of tranquillity and barefoot luxury in the waters of the Sulu Sea. Unlike other upmarket resorts, where staff wear stuffy uniforms and are schooled to be invisible, Amanpulo is all casual elegance. The property has some captivating rough edges that make me feel like I have settled in and become part of island life rather than just another guest staying in a posh suite for a few days. ... Pamalican was home to a working coconut plantation as recently as the early 1990s, and 85 per cent of the staff come from the neighbouring island of Manamoc, rather than fancy hospitality schools in Manila."
10. Prieto-Valdes, Tessa (2005-09-18). "Blissful in Amanpulo". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020050917e19i0000e.
  The article notes: "Amanpulo guests stay in spacious casitas, complete with a luxurious bath and dressing area. Nestled among tropical foliage, the casitas are patterned after the bahay kubo dwelling and were designed by architect Bobby Manosa. Each casita maintains a modern flair and is remarkably well-kept. Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island. ... Now that my soon-to-be-wed friend Kris Aquino is a converted beach lover, I will suggest that she honeymoon with her beau James Yap in Amanpulo. The fact is that it is one of the best resorts in the world. While swimming in their pool, Dennis met a Scottish guy who said it was the most beautiful pool he had ever been in, bar none. Thinking that the Scot must have just arrived in Asia, Dennis asked him how he could make such a hyperbolic statement."
11. Radnor, Abigail (2012-12-08). "Six great island getaways for winter: Diego Della Valle has made millions from Tod's loafers. But can he cobble together the crumbling Coliseum?". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Set the scene inspired by native Filipino dwellings, it is all timber frames and rattan roofs, making it the epitome of fuss-free chic. So this one's a little rustic? Not quite. On swimming out to the floating raft bar you'll be greeted with divans, towels and calamansi juice. And the rooms? Not "rooms", casitas: small houses. Choose between a beach casita within stumbling distance of warm, lapping waves or a treetop casita with views of a tropical landscape."
12. Hryciw, Matt (2019-11-15). "The ultimate luxury retreat in the Philippines: A Philippine private-island paradise, Amanpulo is the ultimate tranquil treat, says Matt Hryciw". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "This is where the use of superlatives to describe Amanpulo’s biggest asset seems unavoidable: if you’re a sun-worshipper or simply love floating in a crystal clear, shallow sea above schools of colourful fish all by yourself, this is unparalleled heaven. Guests at Amanpulo can choose from two types of accommodation. First there are the 42 private, stand-alone rooms like mine called ‘casitas’, which are either cleverly tucked behind the coconut palms along the beach or nestled into the island’s lush interior."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amanpulo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These very excerpts don't treat the topics as distinct. "Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994", "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993", "after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house", "you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas", "Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island". The Noone, Richard excerpt is entirely about Pamalican Island, it's not even about the time period of the resort! CMD (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided more analysis here that there is enough coverage to have one article about the resort (1993–present) and one article about the island (when it was used as a spice trade route centuries ago, to the 18th century, to the present). There is so much coverage of Amanpulo that if both the resort (Amanpulo) and island (Pamalican) were merged to a single article, Amanpulo could be the right place to have all this information. Cunard (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it doubtful the resort on the island would take WP:NOPAGE title preference over the island itself, especially as the island maintains its current name. CMD (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title and WP:COMMONNAME. It is possible that if there is a single article, the common name would be Amanpulo. Many sources focus on Amanpulo the resort rather than than Pamalican the island. It would require a survey of the literature to determine the right title. Cunard (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of commonname. Overlapping topics will often have different common names. 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the resort covers the entire island, it does seem reasonable, and there seems to be a rough consensus to merge, but I'm not sure I see a consensus as to which title the merged article should be at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I'm not sure this passes WP:NCORP. Anything important can be merged to the actual article on the island. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most vacationgoers have heard of "Amanpulo", but not "Pamalican"; most people may even think the name of the island per se is "Amanpulo". See page view stats, with Amanpulo leading 5:1. I'd even argue merge Pamalican to Amanpulo as per WP:GEONATURAL, as the island per se was not notable until the resort was built, or redirect Pamalican to Amanpulo. So yes, Amanpulo is notable, and very much so (denying this fact approaches Quiboloy levels of falsehoods LOL let's be real!), while you can argue Pamalican isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sky Harbor, Cunard and Howard the Duck. -Ian Lopez @ 10:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am leaning towards keeping this, but merging the island article into the resort; they are essentially a fork situation. A hotel or resort can be notable based upon reputable travel guides and reviews. FWIW, I have travel plans for Palawan for later this year, but to a different resort. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 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!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[133] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[134] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[135] is not independent
[136] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[137] is a copy of a press release
[138] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[139] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[140] copy of a press release
[141] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[142] Summary of a press release
[143] Summary of a press release
[144] Summary of a press release
[145] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Gratton

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

Nominated by Ponyshine as not notable. (But the AFD was broken; I'm just fixing that and the discussion page.) -- Beland (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is pretry straightforward to me - subject simply doesn’t meet notability threshold. Yes for delete from me. Ponyshine (talk) 08:56, 30 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!} 09:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think this is somewhat borderline. The two Canberra Times articles are definitely very solid, and there is some additional coverage that mentions him in passing when he was at FFV [146] as well as a fair bit of coverage in soccer-focused publications - e.g. [147]. He's probably most notable for being the first gay man to be the CEO of a major sports organisation in Australia, and has received a fair bit of coverage in queer media for that (surprised that the article doesn't really mention this!) and for his role at MQFF - e.g. [148], [149] and [150]. There are also some passing mentions of him as a Liberal preselection candidate [151] [152], although I unfortunately wasn't able to find any coverage of his 2006 state election candidacy. I think the strongest sources are the two Canberra Times articles and the Star Observer piece, which I think are almost enough to meet GNG, but there's nothing else that could really be considered SIGCOV of Gratton himself. So I'm leaning delete, although I think one more piece of SIGCOV would probably be enough to change my mind. MCE89 (talk) 18:17, 31 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.

Arcadia Global School Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject have enough media coverage such as from The National, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor etc. However, other sources are just passing mentions. Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysecretgarden, if you were familiar with WP:SIRS and had evaluated the sources properly, you would know that the first source you linked is a passing mention and the other three are PR articles. None of these are independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a private school in Dubai, so the nom. is correct to apply WP:NORG as the appropriate guideline and sources must meet WP:SIRS. In particular, coverage should be at WP:ORGDEPTH. The article in the national has a photograph from the school but does not even mention it in the article (which is about the rise in the general private school population). All the Which School Advisor articles count as one (multiple articles from a single source) and are also not independent. Likewise there is nothing in the article that meets SIRS and my searches have drawn a blank too. Not quite sure why this was not suitable for soft deletion. I don't see a former PROD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should be improved by establishing its notability with independent, reliable sources and ensuring a neutral, encyclopedic tone. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 07:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Malik

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

This subject fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, the sources that mention him are poor and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Nxcrypto Message 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Nxcrypto Message 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All references fail WP:SIRS and so the article fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing close to significant coverage. Shrug02 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sikkim cricketers as a WP:ATD. AA (talk) 22:18, 26 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 00:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 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!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 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!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was heading towards a delete opinion, though reading a web translation of the company's own detailed and frank description of their business history, the impact of Amazon acquiring into their market, etc. made me wonder if some form of WP:ATD towards the wider view might exist? The decent coverage of this and other e-comm firms in Christopher Schroeder's 2017 MIT Technology Review article encourages that view, though I still see no suitable target. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I don't see any ATD target either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 27 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) 01:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 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!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're supposes to guess @Liz! Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Knitsey (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 27 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.

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not in-depth; the focus is on the gilets jaunes, not the Maoist Communist Party in particular. Yue🌙 01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The party is underground now but still actively exists, but it clearly needs updates and translations. DuCouscous (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, sources do exist. User:Goldsztajn are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, the party doesn't exist anymore, this article should be deleted. There has been no action claimed by the PCm the past 2 years and according to witness it ceased any operations. DuCouscous (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid reason for deletion per WP:NTEMP; something does not just lose notability because it no longer exists. If the party has received sufficient previous SIGCOV, preferably WP:Three sources that pass SIGCOV, and are reliable and independent of the subject, then it would be notable. I would note that I don't see that in the article as of now; a lot of the article is sourced to what seems to be a Wordpress blog of dubious reliability and independence, and the party's own Web site, which is obviously not usable in determining notability. Similarly, a search for the party's French name returned foreign Maoist parties, though perhaps that's due to the name being a fairly generic term. A search for the party in English was also mostly unsuccessful for similar reasons. Feel free to ping me if additional sources are found, but presently I feel that deletion is most appropriate. Nowhereman1994 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. I see a clear consensus for deletion here, which I'm honestly baffled by; it certainly seems like A Thing to me. If any editors think they could reconceptualize this in a way that would pass an AfD discussion and would like to crib from this article to do so, I'm happy to restore it to userspace for you. asilvering (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic

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

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my !vote. The two source analysis tables below by @WomenArtistUpdates are very convincing. The term is WP:SYNTH, and the article is WP:OR; the subject does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. At this point it is simply a figure of speech, but not a wiki-notable one per the source analyses. I do not think that what is being argued in the k**p !votes has the exactitude necessary to prove that this concept is a "thing" represented clearly and significantly in reliable sources outside of searching for the two terms being used in the same sentence or paragraph. If one googles "orange" and "avocado" together in a search, that does not mean that "orange avocados" exist, nor that "avocado flavored oranges" exist. (The same could be said for "internet orange avocados".) The article should not be retained in the encyclopedia and should be deleted at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move - There's a lot of well researched and cited information here. We should discuss moving them to their relevant pages, I wouldn't want us to lose all of this. But yes, the article name and scope is weird so it can be deleted. Egezort (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per This0k and search engine results such as this descriptor, and this art and popular culture site, and many more. Just search for the term and articles, dictionary definitions, videos, etc. appear. When a page receives 90 thousand views a year it has real-world connections and real-world definitions (readers aren't searching for this out of the blue or in a hypnotic state, they came here to find out about internet aesthetics). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.

Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article definitely needs some refreshing but the topic is a significant/noteworthy topic in contemporary culture, per the others 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it seems sometime in 2024, someone deleted and rewrote the definition section (the previous text) which previously contained sources along with removing some of the information in history 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 09:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: While there has been significant coverage, the article does not entirely read like something that should be on wikipedia. Aesthetics might be widely reported on and worthy of an article, but does wikipedia really need an entire list of all of these aesthetics? Perhaps the more notable ones can be included in a list category, instead of in an article. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My comments are similar to those of Reywas92, so not worth repeating by me.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON The premise is that such a thing as "internet aesthetic" exists and the laundry list of current fashions falls into that aesthetic. No reliable sourcing supports the premise. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this Atlantic article does a good job covering the rise of the Aesthethics wiki and defining internet aesthetics as a "a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”" They do a good job discussing how these aesthetics allow for the articulation, and classification of many different feelings/moods/subcultures/etc. Towards the end they state:

It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.

On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.

Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the three sources cited by the last user, none of them use the term "internet aesthetic" (one says "internet aestheticization", though). To me this argues that the label is an attempt to tie together different things in an WP:OR way. I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox article uses both "online aesthetic" and "digital aesthetic". In reality these are just referred to as "aesthetic" most of the time, but when trying to discuss them and clearly differentiate them from regular aesthetics people sometimes put an adjective in front of them. This article could be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the problem with pretty much all sources attempted. They talk about aesthetics that happen to be common/connected to the internet, but that doesn't make them an "internet aesthetic". Just because people find examples of cottagecore online doesn't make it an "internet aesthetic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem with the sources though, but a problem with the article. The article should just refer to these as "aesthetics" and probably be named something along the lines of Aesthetics (parenthetical differentiator), but there's no clear word to put in the parentheses to differentiate it from the Aesthetics article. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the use of sources which don't use the term, a "definition" which is uncited (and possibly created by AI), and the random list of examples which talk about different aesthetics, all suggest WP:OR by synthesis, an editorial attempt to create a topic where nothing noteworthy exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to the presence of sources such as the ones identified by Photos of Japan. The addition of these may enable the article to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesiMoore, you're 'draftify' should be a 'Keep', because whether or not if sources have been transferred to the page, if they've been found and mentioned in this discussion that confirms notability and GNG on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a collection of loosely-connected subjects which could be considered "internet aesthetics"; essentially it's WP:OR. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been two recurring concerns brought up here: that the grouping of aesthetics here is WP:OR, and that internet aesthetics lack WP:SIGCOV. Discussion has been fragmented, so I will comprehensively address both here.

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns

There are two practical methods for determining what counts as an internet aesthetic for the purpose of being incorporated into this article. For the first, any entry in the Aesthetics Wiki can simply be considered an aesthetic. The Aesthetics Wiki has wide currency as the space on the internet where aesthetics are being documented and catalogued, with multiple rs's that go in depth on internet aesthetics primarily referencing the wiki ([153][154][155]).

For the second practical method, anything containing a common aesthetic suffix or which commonly has "aesthetic" appended to the end of it can be considered an internet aesthetic for this article. For instance, "Clean Girl" is often referred to as "Clean Girl aesthetic" ([156] [157]). Common aesthetic suffixes include “core” (e.g., cottagecore), “goth” (e.g., cybergoth), “kei” (e.g., cult party kei), “punk” (e.g., sea punk), “wave” (e.g., sovietwave), and “academia” (e.g., dark academia)

WP:SIGCOV

Just glancing at the references section and looking at their titles shows that "aesthetics" in the internet sense is in widespread use by reliable sources. However, the main concern people have is whether there is significant coverage to establish them as a concept. This is unequivocally the case with multiple sources delving in depth into aesthetics:

With these (and others) there is enough to write fairly sizeable history, definition, and criticism sections. A concern that has been raised is that these do not all use the term "internet aesthetic". Many terms are used: "online aesthetic", "digital aesthetic", "micro aesthetic", etc. Most commonly they are simply called "aesthetics" (it is tangential to the discussion of notability, but I believe this article should simply refer to them as "aesthetics" and be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet)). Regardless of what they call it, it is clear they are all referring to the same concept, and are referring to things which would be considered internet aesthetics by the two practical methods described earlier.

Issues concerning the article lacking a cited definition, or other content issues have been raised, but should be addressed through editing. The lack of a cited definition is not due to lack of sources trying to define aesthetics, but due to the difficulty in defining them. I am working on a summary of how different sources have discussed its usage, but it is a linguistically complex issue and will likely take a few days. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like an article on Aesthetics Wiki (now a redirect) would/could use the sources above more accurately. It is a tangible thing that exists, controversies and all. I don't think a case has been made that Internet aesthetic exists. Perhaps reversing the redirect would allow for a wiki worthy article that could touch on the topics listed now that fall into OR. I suggest redirect and rewrite as an alternative to deletion, unless a [fandom site] is never considered notable, in which case I stick with removing the article.I do not find any reliable sourcing for this article as it stands and don't see how it can be edited into anything wiki-worthy.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetics exist and are straightforward to identify as such even if they are hard to define. It doesn't help that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." To simply borrow the description from the wiki:

Aesthetics have now come to mean a collection of images, colors, objects, music, and writings that creates a specific emotion, purpose, and community.

Aesthetics largely emerged from the categorization of media across social aggregation websites (Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc.). Broadly speaking "aesthetics" is used to variably to describe collections of media that exemplify something akin to a style or trend, the lifestyles and communities based around them, and the individuals that identify with them. Various sources discuss, however, how they differ from things like styles (not explicitly defined, instead typically illustrated by collections of exemplifying materials), and subcultures (communities around aesthetics don't require physical participation, are more ephemeral, tend to lack political stances/morals/etc.) It is very difficult trying to summarize the various sources' descriptions of how "aesthetics" is used and what "aesthetics" are, while avoiding WP:SYNTH, due to the variety of closely related meanings the word has and the lack of a linguistics source comprehensively and explicitly detailing how the word is being used. However, all of the sources are in common agreement as to what things are aesthetics (e.g. cottagecore, Y2K aesthetic, Dark academia, etc.), these all either end in common aesthetics suffixes or are referred to as "X aesthetic" widely across social media, and are documented and appear in the Aesthetics wiki. Some sources that discuss them include:

The aesthetics of the self: The meaning-making of Internet aesthetics article in First Monday (journal) exploring and characterizing the nature of internet aesthetics:

In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics, labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities by Internet users, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet.

Do I have an Aesthetic? article on aesthetics in Vogue (magazine)

What I’m asking in these moments is, in internet parlance, what is my aesthetic? ... I’m suddenly aware of just how many hyper-specific aesthetics with handy, catchy names already exist on the internet. Overtime, “aesthetic” has evolved from an academic word and something utilized by artists and auteurs to something to categorize our own identities by. It can mean both personal style and a vague stand-in for beauty ... Pinterest says that there has been a growing interest in aesthetics since 2018, with a “large spike of 60% in searches for simply “core aesthetic” as Pinners discovered different types of aesthetics to shape their identity,” ... On Tumblr, users would build their blogs around a particular theme, whether it was cottagecore or a collage of images representing a character from a TV show. These niches have blossomed and expanded. One Tumblr user, who goes by Fairypage, took notice of just how many aesthetics were being defined online, and decided to make the AestheticsWiki ... has her own definition for what an aesthetic is: The stylistically consistent multimodal manifestation of an imagined lifeworld. In other words, “Something is an aesthetic if you can look at an image [or song] and say ‘yeah that belongs there.’”

All style, no substance: the problem of aesthetics in 2023 article on aesthetics in Prospect (magazine)

Aesthetics is no longer an investigative term for the science of beauty and taste, but an umbrella term for online subcultures, a byword for “vibe”. And you can do more than just admire an aesthetic: it’s now something you can be too, if you wear the right clothes and listen to the right playlist. As the wiki itself puts it, “There is currently no dictionary definition that captures the complexity of this phenomenon, which arose in the Internet youth.”

Cottagecore Was Just the Beginning article on aesthetics in The Atlantic:

At this point, the word aesthetic is totally divorced from its academic origins. While Tumblr users mainstreamed it years ago, many teenagers use aesthetic as an all-purpose adjective—“that’s so aesthetic” as a shorthand for “that’s so aesthetically pleasing to me.” But in broader internet parlance, it now means a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”

Decoding Internet Fashion: 20 Aesthetics for 2023 marketing analysis of internet aesthetics by Ipsos

To understand each aesthetic, we analyzed 8 million posts – including text, images, and videos – related to Angelcore, Art Hoe, Baddie, Clean Girl, Coastal Grandmother, Cottagecore, Dark Academia, E-girl, Emo, Fairycore, Grunge, Indie, Kawaii, Kidcore, Light Academia, Old Money, Skater Girl, Soft Girl, Vintage, and Y2K. Hashtags for each of the aesthetics have generated billions of views and interactions on TikTok, displaying content from influencers, brands, and “normal” platform users. While TikTok generates the most engagement on aesthetics-related posts, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are also go-to sites to share and discuss content.'

Style at Home: Internet aesthetics: cottagecore vs. cluttercore article in The Detroit News:

The aesthetics tend to be more than just a design choice, sometimes also embodying a fantastical-seeming lifestyle.

Ranking 2023's Internet Aesthetic Trends article in Paper (magazine)

More sources exist, but I believe these are sufficient to show that internet aesthetics (e.g. Corecore, Y2K aesthetic, Light academia, Cottagecore) exist, and have recieved WP:SIGCOV, even if they are conceptually difficult to describe. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really seems like you're conflating the existence and study of aesthetics that happen to be online to the existence of an "internet aesthetic". This is the core OR/SYNTH issue at hand. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This paper details what internet aesthetics are. Just glancing through the abstract and introduction establishes their existence. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paper referred to above states in the Abstract In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet (mainly onInstagram, Tumblr and Pinterest). In contrast to established notions, such as genre, style or subculture, Internet aesthetics are characterized by few conventions, but seem fundamentally open for individual interpretations. (emphasis mine). It fails to define Internet aesthetics in any useful way, in fact it takes a step back from supplying any useful information by stating that it is whatever one wants it to be. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that "so-called" is often used in an ironic sense to cast doubt on something (i.e. implying that something is merely "called" something but isn't actually that thing), but this paper is using "so-called" in the straightforward sense: "used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified".

The paper spends half of its text describing and characterizing internet aesthetics, and arguing that they aren't "styles", "genres", "subcultures", etc. It isn't saying internet aesthetics are whatever you want them to be when it says that they are "fundamentally open for individual interpretations". Rather it is saying that what defines an internet aesthetic is the mood that the individual feels, and that different media affect individuals differently, allowing individuals to select media which set the mood for them.

For instance, a beanie baby might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia in someone here, while for an old Japanese man Daruma otoshi might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia. Internet aesthetics are characterized by collections of exemplifying media (songs, images, etc.) that set a certain mood, but are fundamentally open to individuals to include or exclude things that don't evoke that mood for them, rather than being prescriptive (like a style or genre) and being defined based off external, sensorial qualities. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a source assessment table for 20 pf the citations without finding significant coverage of the term Internet aesthetic. I will do the other 21 when time permits. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vogue.com/article/do-i-have-an-aesthetic		article discusses aesthetics and does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/aesthetics.htm		definition of aesthetics - does not mention "intent aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/lifestyle/what-is-an-art-hoe-aesthetic-5555291	Vancouver Is Awesome	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/56630/1/young-women-on-the-internet-love-lolita-nymphet-tumblr-coquette-aesthetic		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://screenshot-media.com/culture/internet-culture/weirdcore-explained/		article about Weirdcore	✘ No
https://www.voguebusiness.com/story/fashion/set-follow-or-skip-how-brands-should-navigate-micro-trends		article about micro-trends does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/core		passing use of the term to help define micro-trend	✘ No
https://time.com/6248637/corecore-tiktok-aesthetic/		article about Corecore does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/19/year-2000-y2k-millennium-design-aesthetic		article about Y2K aesthetic does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.nylon.com/fashion/y2k-cybercore-aesthetic-fashion-trend		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-year-in-aesthetics-from-dark-academia-to-mcbling/		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vogue.com/article/y2k-fashion		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/58103/1/what-is-frutiger-aero-aesthetic-tiktok-msn-messenger-windows-vista-noughties		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.reeditionmagazine.com/to-the-minute/unveiling-the-mystery-exploring-the-fascinating-world-of-frutiger-aero		article about frutiger aero, does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/frutiger-aero-aesthetic-resurgance		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/style/dark-academia-tiktok.html		does not mention "internet aesthetics" at all	✘ No
https://www.vinsider.ca/voices/the-rise-of-dark-academia/		does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.wallflowerjournal.com/lifestyle/dark-academia-light-academia-amp-cottagecore-breaking-down-3-popular-internet-aesthetics		Dark Academia, Light Academia, & Cottagecore: Breaking Down 3 Popular Internet Aesthetics - uses the term in the headline, but nowhere in the article	✘ No
https://www.theotheraesthetic.com/blog/types-of-academia-aesthetics-which-one-are-you/		article on Academia Aesthetics. does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ 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}}.

Another 20 sources reviewed in this assessment table. Still no definition or information on "internet aesthetic". --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://thepearlexpert.com/light-academia/	~ uses the term internet aesthetic without any definition. This seems to be a very fashion specific article	✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/lifestyle/what-is-the-light-academia-aesthetic-vancouver-5516856	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8/3/21349640/cottagecore-taylor-swift-folklore-lesbian-clothes-animal-crossing	mentions internet aesthetics in the author biography, but nowhere esle in this article on cottagecore	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/why-is-cottagecore-booming-because-being-outside-is-now-the-ultimate-taboo	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/vsco-girl-purchases-boosted-brands-vsco-app-2019-8#the-vsco-girl-summer-is-over-but-sales-are-not-2	article about VSCO girl - does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/09/vsco-girls-explained-by-teens.html	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/vsco-girl-starter-pack	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.elle.com/fashion/trend-reports/a28709397/vsco-girls-what-to-know/	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/20/why-vsco-girls-are-going-on-strike-for-the-climate/	does not mention internet aesthetics at all	✘ No
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39359-4_7	paywall	? Unknown
https://www.vogue.com/article/what-is-mcbling	What Is McBling and How Is it Different From Y2K? - does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/fashion/news/g5694/vintage-christina-aguilera/	50 Christina Aguilera Fashion Moments You Forgot You Were Obsessed With - does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/e-girls-definition-tiktok-e-boys-anti-influencer-teen-gamers-2019-9	Everything you need to know about e-girls and e-boys, teen gamers who have emerged as the antithesis of Instagram influencers - does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://heatworld.com/shopping/fashion/e-girl-style-guide/	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://manofmany.com/fashion/mens-fashion-trends/what-is-an-eboy-the-true-eboy-style-explained	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://happymag.tv/indie-aesthetic/	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://nypost.com/2022/07/27/what-is-the-clean-girl-aesthetic-how-to-achieve-the-look/	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2022/07/11048021/unbothered-clean-girl-makeup-black-women	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.instyle.com/clean-girl-aesthetic-fashion-trend-5496498	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ No
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/birkenstock-arizona-sandals	does not mention "internet aesthetic"	✘ 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}}.

Thank for you the table, however, it is important to note that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." (I understand that wikis are generally not reliable, but given this particular wiki is the main place internet aesthetics are documented and categorized (and is referenced in reliable sources) then I feel its page on internet aesthetics helps support basic statements about how the term itself is used.) The problem that we have is this article isn't about the term "internet aesthetic", but the concept, and the concept is widely referred to just as "aesthetics".

Internet aesthetics are just "aesthetics" (in the expanded internet usage of the word) that developed and occur primarily online.

To determine if sources are referring to internet aesthetics you need to consider the context of the article.

As an example, the Vogue article describes both internet and non-internet aesthetics:

Some are old school—Art Deco is listed along with preppy—others are products of the internet, like e-girls and bubblegum bitch

The Vogue article is discussing "aesthetics" (in the internet sense of the word) broadly, so while it could be used to establish the notability of "aesthetics", it wouldn't establish notability of any subsets of "aesthetics" such as "internet aesthetics".

As far as reliable sources that explicitly use the term "internet aesthetics" and give them significant coverage, here are three academic papers:

"The aesthetics of the self: The meaning-making of Internet aesthetics" in First Monday
~~Dark Academia: Curating Affective History in a COVID-Era Internet Aesthetic in International Public History published by an imprint of De Gruyter~~ I'm striking this source since while it gives sigcov to the internet aesthetic Dark Academia, it gives only passing coverage of internet aesthetics in general
The haunting of classics in the Dark Academia aesthetic in Classical Receptions Journal

I believe those three papers, by themselves, are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The third article also includes the statement

In the past few years, researchers from English, History, Comparative Literature, Sociology, and Culture Studies, among others, have begun interrogating internet aesthetics as cultural phenomena that implicate their own disciplines, as well as the structures of academia writ large.

And appears as though it may be a source for additional articles discussing internet aesthetics. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon (magazine) has a series of articles called "Core Club" devoted to covering internet aesthetics:

Whether it's a fashion trend on TikTok or a certain style taking over Instagram, internet aesthetics are always changing online. Our series 'Core Club breaks down the looks that you're starting to see a lot on social media and highlights the people and brands channeling it best.

Extended content

she doubled down on what’s known online as “princesscore,” a style that falls under the “royalcore” internet aesthetic.

...its similarities with cottagecore and how that particular internet aesthetic

15 Beauty Essentials to Complete Your Royalcore Aesthetic

No matter what you call it, this internet aesthetic is for those who crave opulence and romance in their everyday life.

Fairycore Is The Glittery Internet Aesthetic That’s Ready To Take Over Spring

Enter: fairycore, the latest internet aesthetic taking the fashion spotlight in all its glittery, warm glory.

Light Academia Is The Inevitable Internet Aesthetic Opposite Of Dark Academia

In the case of dark academia, its inevitable internet aesthetic opposite is slowly on the rise

Meanwhile, YouTuber Liz Ruth, who did a deep dive on the differences between the two internet aesthetics in a video that she posted in October

...one internet aesthetic is keeping the holiday's spirit in style all year long. Lovecore, which has developed a cult following...

Kidcore Is The Wholesome Internet Aesthetic Inspired By Childhood

a new internet aesthetic is tapping into childhood nostalgia: kidcore.

Photos of Japan (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Photos of Japan, you've done a great deal of work in finding what I would think are enough sources to save the page or at least provide a "no consensus" option. Since some of your newest finds are tucked away in an "Extended comment" box, hopefully editors will open it before commenting. This has been a long AfD! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of the synthesis issue as discussed above: it is correct there are aesthetic trends, that they are localised on Internet communities and critically discussed, but the category as a whole is indefinite, lacks rigorous sourcing based on above source checks, and so the exercise of connecting the dots is largely one undertaken by the editor without any agreed typology. Without a scope it becomes confusing whether the aesthetics of interest refer to those created within and using the medium or popularised and disseminated on subcultures on the Internet. Lots to salvage here on individual trends though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the "category as a whole is indefinite" which would essentially make this a broad-concept article (WP:BROAD):

A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts.

Other example articles are indefinite as well, such as Central Asia and Northern Europe, which similarly have issues with WP:SYNTH. The problem with SYNTH in broad concept articles has been discussed on the talk page, however, SYNTH is ultimately a content issue and not a notability issue unless per WP:SIGCOV the sourcing requires OR in order to write an article.

But an article's subject being broad, vague or abstract does not necessitate that OR is needed to write it, otherwise WP:BROAD wouldn't exist.

In terms of this particular article I believe one potential way the SYNTH issues could be addressed could be:

The definition section limits itself to articles that explicitly discuss "internet aesthetics" (as I've rewritten it to do).

Examples of internet aesthetics are limited to those which have been explicitly described as "internet aesthetics" (there are already several examples that are explicitly described as such)

The history section can include more general sources on the term "aesthetic" and how its usage has evolved in internet parlance.

I believe this is one way that the article could be written to avoid SYNTH while still having enough content to write an article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here due to servicing the category "Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts" and found this. Had a look it. If this was a true social movement it would be academically rigourous, studied and would be referenced as such, but it isn't, with plenty of academic references available to support it. Its quite hard to find anything on gbooks except self-published books. Instead its been cobbled together from a set of independent subjects and referenced as such to popular internet sites which essentially makes it WP:OR published by the author. It was moved from draft by him without being referenced. If it had been, it wouldn't made it out. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have replaced the LLM generated definition section with a new section that cites three academic articles. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, for those who point out that the exact and full name is not used in all of the sources (although many use it), the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title explains that "When there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here are 6 reliable sources that provide significant coverage of internet aesthetics. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369252566_The_aesthetics_of_the_self_The_meaning-making_of_Internet_aesthetics		entire study on internet aesthetics	✔ Yes
https://academic.oup.com/crj/article/16/4/419/7710018?login=false		contains an entire section discussing internet aesthetics	✔ Yes
https://www.nylon.com/core-club		is an entire series of articles on internet aesthetics per its description, 7 of the articles explicitly use the term "internet aesthetic" to describe the subject of the article	✔ Yes
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2020/09/03/autonomy-and-internet-aesthetics/	Is an academic blog devoted to the philosophy of aesthetics. The author is an associate professor of philosophy with an interest in aesthetics. The blog's editor in chief is an associate professor of philosophy, and the two assistant editors are both professors of philosophy, all of whom specialize in aesthetics	is an entire article devoted to internet aesthetics	✔ Yes
https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2024/03/07/are-the-kids-alright-on-cottagecore-quiet-luxury-clean-girl-and-other-internet-aesthetics/	Same blog as before. This article was also co-edited by Aaron Meskin, Head of Philosophy at the University of Georgia, and former Professor of Philosophical Aesthetics at the University of Leeds	collection of writings on internet aesthetics written by students (BA, MA, and PhD) of philosophy and two assistant professors of philosophy	✔ Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/magazine/aesthetics-tiktok-teens.html		entire article devoted to how subcultures are being replaced by aesthetics. Previously mentioned Aaron Meskin in the previous source clarifies that the author in this article is referring to internet aesthetics.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Starting a list of things that sources have explicitly referred to as an "internet aesthetic". Photos of Japan (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Cottagecore
- Leyda, Julia; Sulimma, Maria (April 2023). "Pop/Poetry: Dickinson as Remix". Arts. 12 (2): 62. doi:10.3390/arts12020062. ISSN 2076-0752.
- "Royalcore Is The Internet Aesthetic That's All About Dressing Up Like A Princess". Nylon. 25 February 2021.
- "Cryptidcore and the joy of discovering mythical creatures in the wild, explained". SCREENSHOT Media.

Coquette
- Khanliyan, Viktoriya. "The coquette aesthetic and reclaiming femininity". The Mirror.

Cryptidcore
- "Cryptidcore and the joy of discovering mythical creatures in the wild, explained". SCREENSHOT Media.

Dark academia
- Lee, Tori F (1 October 2024). "The haunting of classics in the Dark Academia aesthetic". Classical Receptions Journal. 16 (4): 419–436. doi:10.1093/crj/clae007. ISSN 1759-5142.
- Adriaansen, Robbert-Jan (1 December 2022). "Dark Academia: Curating Affective History in a COVID-Era Internet Aesthetic". International Public History. 5 (2): 105–114. doi:10.1515/iph-2022-2047. ISSN 2567-1111.
- "What Is Light Academia? All About The Internet Aesthetic Rival To Dark Academia". Nylon. 20 February 2024.
- "Cryptidcore and the joy of discovering mythical creatures in the wild, explained". SCREENSHOT Media.

Dreamcore
- "Dreamcore, Sister To Weirdcore, Is The Internet Aesthetic Packed With Uneasiness". Nylon. 10 November 2021.

Fairycore
- "Fairycore Is The Glittery Internet Aesthetic That's Ready To Take Over Spring". Nylon. 20 February 2024.

Goblincore
- "Goblincore Is The Cottagecore-Adjacent Internet Aesthetic That Celebrates Comfort". Nylon. 23 December 2020.

Hyperpop
- Pelly, Liz (7 January 2025). Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-6680-8350-5.

Indie sleaze
- Kane, Hannah (12 October 2023). The Style Thesaurus: A definitive, gender-neutral guide to the meaning of style and an essential wardrobe companion for all fashion lovers. Quercus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5294-2188-0.

Kidcore
- "Kidcore Is The Wholesome Internet Aesthetic Inspired By Childhood". Nylon. 20 February 2024.
- "Kidcore brand Blackcurrant Pop explains the viral internet aesthetic". SCREENSHOT Media.

Light Academia
- "What Is Light Academia? All About The Internet Aesthetic Rival To Dark Academia". Nylon. 20 February 2024.

Lovecore
- "Lovecore Is The Internet Aesthetic That Celebrates Valentine's Day Year Round". Nylon. 23 November 2020.
- "Lovecore is the wholesome internet aesthetic celebrating romance all year round". SCREENSHOT Media.

Royalcore
- "Royalcore Is The Internet Aesthetic That's All About Dressing Up Like A Princess". Nylon. 25 February 2021.
- "15 Royalcore Beauty Essentials Fit For A Queen". Nylon. 29 September 2021.

Sad Girl
- Crawford, Marisa (13 February 2024). The Weird Sister Collection: Writing at the Intersections of Feminism, Literature, and Pop Culture. Feminist Press at CUNY. ISBN 978-1-55861-301-0./Gaynor, Emily (24 September 2015). "IN DEFENSE OF SORROW: The Sad Girl Internet Aesthetic". Weird Sister.

Vaporwave
- Seigworth, Gregory J.; Arthur, Mathew; Truran, Wendy J.; Behrenshausen, Bryan G. (26 July 2017). Capacious: Journal for Emerging Affect Inquiry Vol. 1 No. 1. Capacious Journal. pp. 59, 61. ISBN 978-1-5470-5311-7.

VSCO
- C, Anthony (4 September 2020). "Instagram Filters for the Self: Autonomy and Internet "Aesthetics"". Aesthetics for Birds.

You have cobbled a series of reference here don't add up to squat as there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together - its all disparate popular culure subjects. It is essentially popular culture junk reporting that has been attached to the term and has no meaning. scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together", except the multiple academic papers discussing the underlying knowledge linking them together, presented in the source assessment table right above this. The point of this list is to provide a list of sources that refer to specific things as an "internet aesthetic" to support them being mentioned in the article. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:35, 31 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 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharan Kaur Pabla

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

"Sharan Kaur" was a fictional character created by the author Vir Singh in a fictional novel. There are literally no reliable sources to support that "Sharan Kaur" was an actual historical figure. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even disregarding the inaccuracies, this article has only one source supporting it. A Google search found some websites which support his existence, such as this one, but this website is far from noteworthy coverage nor is it a reliable source. Even the most popular result, from SikhiWiki, cites Wikipedia as a reference, making it unusable. [[User:|Jordano]]^5³ 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Sikhism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with nomination, and there is a circular sourcing. I can't be sure if the person actually existed or not. In any case, the person fails WP:GNG as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jordano53. Whether a fictional character or real, or some mixture, the subject isn't covered significantly. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There were no arguments to Keep that addressed problems in the article that were included in the nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article without notability. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. After the source analysis in the nomination statement, any editors arguing to Keep have to counter this assessment of the sources or present ones they believe are reliable. Just saying they exist is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I largely concur with the source analysis above. These are passing mentions. BusterD (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. Well written article, and he's an important person in the Battle of Haldighati. Parmeshwara (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. Tgvarrt (talk) 00:54, 31 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.

Vampire Beach

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."
2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."
3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."
4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.
  The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."
  The article lists the books in the series:
  Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S
  Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.
  Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.
5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.
  The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."
6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.
  The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."
7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.
  The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vampire Beach to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.

Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
Can't access Squires 2006.
Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
Can't access The Bookseller.
C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.

Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet on whether the sources cited provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was previous discussion about series at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)/Archive 8#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?. In the AfD that prompted that discussion, ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) made this comment:
There has been precedent in the past with AfDs that the notability for individual parts of a series can establish notability for the main parent series - even if the sourcing for those books do not go into depth about the overall series. You can see my above comments for further detail, but the gist is that since these books are part of the whole, coverage for the novels can be seen as coverage for the whole since each book builds on the existing storyline. Merging everything into a single article for the first book would run the risk of putting undue weight on the series or providing incomplete coverage when more sourcing is available and a more reasonable compromise would be to have a main series page.
The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted. (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.) To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature. Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first. GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply. It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable. Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet. Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently. (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.)
Based on this analysis, I think it's reasonable to cover all of these books in a series article. The books have received varying levels of coverage. Vampire Beach: Bloodlust and Vampire Beach: Initiation both pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, but the other books in the series do not pass it. Rather than creating two separate small articles about the two notable books in the series (and not discussing the other books in the series at all), it better serves readers to cover them all in a series article. This position aligns with Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Merging to broader subjects, which says:
In some situations, editors decide that a separate article about a book, regardless of whether the book is notable, is not the best choice. The main alternatives include merging the content about a book to an article about the author, to an article about a book series (if it is part of a series), or to a list. ... Similarly, a single article giving an overview of a whole book series (e.g., the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories or the Aubrey–Maturin series) may be preferable to having separate articles about individual books in the series.
Cunard (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep. Good job Cunard in finding those - they completely evaded me when I searched! I also do agree that a book series article would be the best option here. My stance on the series has always been that if we can find enough sourcing, to keep a book article. I absolutely agree that we do need to have a bit at NBOOK that either covers series or a notability guideline for series as a whole. My stance at the above discussion was that we double or triple the amount of sourcing needed for a series article, as a way of being more discerning. I've written enough series articles to know that if a series is truly non-notable, it won't have the coverage. I've tried making articles for relatively popular series (in their genre) that didn't gain enough coverage to even justify a series page.

In any case, steering this back to the article at hand, Cunard was able to find 7 sources. Some of them might seem short or heavy on the summary, but as far as I know there hasn't been any sort of definitive discussion as far as what is or isn't usable as a source. Length can impact what is seen as usable sometimes, but that's often for reviews that are 1-2 sentences long overall (ie, not even any summary). It also helps that the sources Cunard brought up are outlets seen as pretty solid otherwise - the only one I'd see as obviously trivial would be the Joshi source, since that's a one line mention. VOYA is probably one of the next shortest, but they're seen as a pretty good source. The organization had ties to the ALA and while they reviewed quite a bit, they were always a bit discerning. I say all of this in past tense, as VOYA was one of the many outlets and organizations that went under during the COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting sourcing isn't as strong as I'd like, but I think it's enough to justify a series article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Well argued. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see no support for Deletion in this discussion outside of the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Titre-Montgomery

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

No SIGCOV, I can only find 1 independent, non-sponsored, in-depth, and reliable source. Bearian, just because we're scrutinized by the public doesn't mean we need to keep articles that are not within policy. In fact, we should be making every effort to delete articles out of policy. The book user:Megalibrarygirl added (from my one-in-the-morning skim of Google Books) appears to be fairly trivial, stating facts and that's 'bout it. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Video games. Jay Cubby 06:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote this article and there's plenty of coverage for GNG. Please look at the full set of sources the article uses. They include:

Changing the Equation: 50+ Women in STEM Published by Abrams 2020
Coverage on NPR: Changing the Game in Video Gaming 2013
Biography on BlackPast: [158] 2018
Women in Gaming 2018 DK Publishing biography
Business Insider from 2015 [159]
Gaming magazine [160] 2024
Biography on Centre for Computing History [161]

As shown above, the subject of the article has been noticed by important people in her field, such as the Computer History museum. The assertion that books made for general consumption are trivial is not an argument for deletion. What is a trivial book to one person is not trivial to others and can still be a good source of reliable information. Non-fiction books by large publishers (Such as Abrams) go through a good amount of copyedit and scrutiny. In addition, books for general consumption show that a person is notable in their field enough to break through to the general public which is why they are included in 2 popular reading anthologies. With all of the coverage from several sources over time, including two books, the article demonstrates WP:GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Megalibrarygirl here. I saw this delete nomination and started looking through the sources. This looks pretty solid to me. An aside that normally wouldn't matter, but warrants a little mention here → Megalibrarygirl is by profession a librarian. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jay Cubby with re-formatting by Nnev66 to keep discussion consistent and hopefully easier to follow:

Google Books: From the pages that were available there (I couldn't find a PDF to pirate), mentions appear trivial but Google Books probably omitted lots of pages.
NPR: It's an interview, so not really independent.
BlackPast: "This entry is sponsored by Quintard Taylor" -- unless sponsored means someone made a donation to BlackPast and got their name on articles in return, I'm skeptical.
That book was written by Meagan Marie, at the time of that book's writing she was an online community manager (whatever that means) for Crystal Dynamics. I don't see a professional connection between Marie and Titre-Montgomery on my skim of the article. The book reads (again , from the Google Books sample) like children's pulp fiction (pixel font, headings like "♥STATS: Industry Level: 20; CURRENT CLASS: Co-Chair")
Business Insider: Titre-Montgomery is 23 of 23 on the list, and the portion devoted to her is short enough I can quote it without fear of running into copyright issues:

- Titre has been a video game developer for over thirteen years. A couple of months ago she landed at Ubisoft, makers of the smash hit Assassin's Creed series, as a manager in its art/computer department.

- Not only does she have a geek's dream job, but Titre has also been a tireless advocate encouraging more young women, especially underprivileged youth, to consider the gaming industry as a career.

GamesIndustry.biz: (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamesIndustry.biz) From their about: "GamesIndustry.biz is the market leading website and community for news and information about the global video games industry." The article mostly consists of quotes from L-TM.
CfCH: No sigcov. The entirety of her bio is a whopping 124 words.

Jay Cubby 18:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion on how to mention her on Race and video games? IgelRM (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Highlighted by CNN. Someone will probably argue with WP:NARTIST. IgelRM (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the CNN footage. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by Megalibrarygirl, of which #3, #6, and #7 IMO are the strongest sources for WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for WP:GNG. The other references provide more than passing mention. In the next week or two I'll try to see how much coverage the books have. I added info from the CNN video to the article. I'd also include "5 Top Black Women In STEM" in Black Enterprise as a GNG source. Nnev66 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still believe WP:GNG is met by sources in the article. For #3, it looks like BlackPast asks for sponsorships for all articles. Note Quintard Taylor sponsored a variety of pages, i.e. no reason to think the subject paid for the article. Regarding #6, which includes 300 words that are not direct quotes, GamesIndustry.biz appears to have editorial oversight and is referenced in other newspapers, i.e. seems like a reliable source. I had not originally included #2, the NPR "Tell Me More" interview by Michel Martin for GNG, but it does have 225 words of secondary independent commentary by the interviewer. I also believe 5 Top Black Women in STEM in Black Enterprise (let's call source #8 for this discussion) contributes to GNG, which is a bit over 200 words without direct quotes by subject. Note all of these sources are more than trivial mention. WP:SIGCOV doesn't give a word minimum to count towards GNG, just that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Nnev66 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources provided, Wikipedia:Notability is met. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:02, 29 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 Cold (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McCandless

AfDs for this article:

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

Been sitting in the unclear notability pile for 10+ years now, and it cites only one source that doesn't help for NBIO or GNG. There's one mag profile that doesn't go into much real depth but I guess could help, but I couldn't find anything else. WP:BANDMEMBER is pretty clear that members don't automatically inherit notability from the band, so I don't see a NMUSIC pass either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cold (band). Plasuible redirect and it appears to be the only band he released music with. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per policy. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cold (band) - in agreement with nominator and previous voters. The article is an attempted biography of his time in several bands, but his only reliable media coverage is as a member of Cold. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 28 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!} 07:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slipz

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, his only notability is being a cameraman for a streamer. No reliable source used either. Http iosue (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG in WP:CREATIVE. Limited to no WP:V. Mostly indirect news articles and user created content. QEnigma talk 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His footage of Speed is significant enough to make him notable. The article cites a biography. 65.92.98.176 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 29 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.

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete @Ratnahastin, you are right that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a big problem when it comes to checking notability in India. However, in this case, since the page is about a listed company, I have found three sources that are independent analyst reports with disclaimers. - HDFC Securities, SBI securities, and ~~SMIFS~~. But I am not sure how many such reports are needed to establish the notability of these types of companies or how relevant they are. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 30 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!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SMIFS analyst report I shared earlier has been struck through. On page 13, it mentions that SMIFS or its associates may have received payments for products or services not related to investment banking or brokerage from the company mentioned in the report over the past year. Because of this, I am pulling back my earlier weak keep vote. As of now, just two analyst reports alone aren’t enough to prove notability. I should have read the disclaimer carefully. Sorry for the mistake. Charlie (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears more as if it were created from search engine results rather than from content found on Wikipedia, therefore making it functionally useless. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Banana (disambiguation) Plausible misspelling; the 8TV block is actually mentioned on List of programmes broadcast by TV3 (Malaysia) so that was in error, and it seems like it moved to NTV7 during a time 8TV carried Nickelodeon programming instead, so it's a duplicate mention. Whatever the case, mention on the dab page as a secondary spelling is proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two legitimate entries on the page now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 28 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!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disambiguation has limited utility, with only two entries, one being a partial title match and both topics can be addressed within their respective articles.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. asilvering (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zemun Stadium

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Zemun#Sport or FK Zemun if no coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would run afoul of WP:XY. Ravenswing 04:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To fix WP:XY, I would say redirect to Zemun#Sport if no coverage is found because the topic is broader than FK Zemun. --Habst (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Ravenswing 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be absolutely astounded if this isn't notable. I'll try to do a source search in a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD which contains numerous sources. Giant Snowman 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources do you claim provides SIGCOV to the subject? (Never mind that the editor who found those sources went on to state that none of those sources satisfied the GNG) Ravenswing 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources at the previous AfD demonstrate notability, along with [162] [163] and books such as Srbija: znamenitosti i lepote (1965) SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is this stadium is known by several different names, making BEFORE searches more difficult. Recent coverage also includes [164] [165] SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the sources identified here or in the previous AfD to the article would likely help garner consensus quicker.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:58, 16 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) 04:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources provided in this AfD or in the article contain the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I'm not finding anything else that would suggest notability, and notability is not inherited. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has significant potential for expansion and it is notable. — Sadko (words are wind) 16:37, 25 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 01:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Beasnael

AfDs for this article:

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

While it has been improved from its poor state after creation by a subsequently blocked sock, this is still a WP:PROMO biography for a non-notable individual. Sources are limited to:

The subject's own writing and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs ([166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174])
WP:PRSOURCEs ([175], [176])
Churnalism based on interviews solely with or statements solely by the author (and thus also primary sources) ([177], [178])
Primary source official bios ([179], [180])
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([181])

Meanwhile, the awards she has received are not of the kind to qualify her as notable under WP:ANYBIO. Nothing qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Bottom line: fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had the same concerns while editing the article recently. Ligaturama (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (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 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard

AfDs for this article:

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

Hasn't changed since previous AFD. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unclear why the article was kept per no consensus in the previous AfD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 10 December 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 03:50, 17 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!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG in WP:CREATIVE. QEnigma talk 14:53, 24 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zubretsky

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

WP:BLP of a health insurance executive, not adequately sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, health insurance CEOs are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage that's substantively about them and their work, but the referencing here isn't really cutting it: the best sources are two short blurbs published on the same day announcing his initial hiring for the job, which aren't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by themselves, while the rest of the footnotes comprise a press release self-published by his company (which isn't an independent source), an industry trade newsletter that isn't a GNG-worthy publication, and three articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, but just glancingly namecheck him in the process of being principally about the overall phenomenon of how much insurance executives are getting paid.
Further, the information about his annual financial compensation over several years is a bit of a BLP minefield, especially in the wake of last week's shooting -- the amount that a person gets paid is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but that appears to be this article's primary concern.
Simply existing as an insurance CEO, regardless of how much money he is or isn't making, is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the principal subject of more GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E - If the Brian Thompson murder had not happened, it is unlikely Zubretsky would be eligible for his own article. As is, it reads like an unremarkable resume. The same career background and compensation is not that out of line in corporate executive salaries. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention in the article, "While at Aetna, Zubretsky increased telecommuting for employees as a way to save on office and real estate costs." Maybe so, but this was already the going trend in corporate America about the time he started doing that. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I mean, this is well-sourced. A "Run of the mill CEO article" isn't exactly routine, there aren't thousands of health-care CEOs, he's one of a handful... A company of this size is akin to General Motors or Enron, so the CEO would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced how, if the only footnotes that actually represent real media outlets writing about him are both short blurbs? Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally at least enough for a stub article. We have confirmation of employment at a large healthcare enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough in terms of sourcing to justify this article's existence. I'm less than keen on Wikipedia being party to a naming-and-blaming campaign, but we're not censored. I created an article on a corporate executive that survived an AfD (Ted Decker) and this is article's subject is vaguely reminiscent of that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also this profile in a newspaper [182]. There are mentions of his name in newspapers back to 2007 with Aetna, he's had a long business career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well yes, some sources are good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd be interested in hearing from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources present in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:09, 31 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but there also needs to be a further discussion after this closure on whether this article should be retitled or the entire article refocused. There is no consensus on what to do next, just to Keep this article for further editing and adaptation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([183]) and New Arab ([184]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.
    
    Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.
Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 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!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep an article with the present scope (this attack, regardless of whether the "massacre" label is justified) or reframe this as an article about all the airstrikes in the most recent episode? At the moment I see an even split between these options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is sufficiently significant and notable Codonified (talk) 22:48, 26 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.

Daniel Owiredu

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

All the sources fail WP: GNG and the subject of the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV to have a Wikipedia page. The article is ref bombed with press releases with two sentences getting up to 7 references. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: @Ibjaja055, I disagree with the assertion that the subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The subject has indeed received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Below are some examples:
Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 Thank you for providing all these sources. Prior to nomination of this article, I have gone through all the sources used in the article and additional ones available online. Almost all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. Since you have brought these sources up, that should have been the best of them all. Let's do a brief analysis of them.
1st source is a press release about his stepping down as executive officer of Golden star resources and the ascension of a new person. The article is all about the new Chairman, Mr Crew rather than him.

2nd source A press release dismissing allegation against him and lack a significant coverage of him.

3rd source: A source about a non notable award presented to him and also lacked significant coverage.

4th source: Another news report about his allegations without significant coverage.

5th source: This looks like a WP:GNG source but can we use one WP:GNG to establish notability?Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One GNG worthy source cannot establish notability. All other sources are press releases and they lack significant coverage. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055. I’m still trying to understand what you mean by lack significant coverage . All the sources you provided have significant coverage about the subject. I suggest you review WP:SIGCOV Robertjamal12 ~🔔 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 perhaps, you will understand with this. I have broken down each of the sources and you can study my comments alongside the reason why they cannot be used toward WP:GNG. Thank you.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/	It is a press release about the removal and ascension of the new head.	It is a national daily	It does not discuss the subject directly. It focused on the new head rather than him	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html	A press release dismissing the allegations against him. A statement from the bank...	I Though, it was clarified as unclear here yet I am passing it for this.	It is on the allegations rather than him	✘ No
https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu	A press release about a non notable award	It looked like a National daily though couldn't find it here	It does address the subject directly	✘ No
https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/	Press release about his allegations	It is a national daily	It only focuses on his allegations with little or nothing known about him	✘ No
https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Daniel-Owiredu-is-the-mining-personality-of-the-Year-2017-604726	Though, it looked like a press release but written from news media perspective	It is a national daily	It discussed the subject directly and no original research is needed	✔ Yes
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}}.

@Ibjaja055, I disagree with your assessment of the sources provided regarding the subject's notability. Your review appears to misinterpret the criteria for WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/ - It does not discuss the subject directly. It focused on the new head rather than him. This source explicitly discusses the subject's tenure and contributions before transitioning from his role. It’s a news article, not a press release
https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html - It is on the allegations rather than him. The allegations themselves are significant coverage directly involving the subject
https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/ - It only focuses on his allegations with little or nothing known about him. This source delves into the subject's standing as GCB Board Chairman and his role in addressing the issues.
https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu - It does address the subject directly. - As you stated it does address the subject directly which you are right

In addition to the sources provided, here are a few as well

The subject pass both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. None of the sources you assessed as press releases are WP:PRSOURCE and all provide significant coverage of the subject. - Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertjamal12 After this, I am going to literally drop the stick. Your first additional source and the third source are exactly the same as the first source that I called a press release, word for word. A three independent and reliable news media with the same contents word for word and yet you claimed that the source is not a press release. Indeed we are not dealing with press releases here probably a source farming.

The second and fourth are still about his appointment as the head of an organisation that can't make him notable. At this point, I am dropping the stick. Happy editing!Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibjaja055 Thank you for taking the time to review my comments regarding the assessment table above. I believe the subject meets the requirements of GNG. I also respect your decision to drop the stick. Wishing you all the best, and happy editing! — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:46, 30 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!} 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my analysis of each source so far. The verb tense I used is inconsistent, but irrelevant to notability.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/, https://www.classfmonline.com/business/Golden-Star-s-Daniel-Owiredu-steps-down-as-EVP-5014, and https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/golden-star-announces-changes-to-management-team/, which count as a single source, are definitely not significant. They have the following information:

On 1 January 2020, Owiredu stepped down as EVP and COO of Golden Star and became chairman of the board of directors of two of the company's subsidiaries.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html (reliability: unclear), which I has some criticisms so I don't think it's a press release, has the following:

Owiredu is board chairman of the GCB Bank

He is also chairman of the credit sub-committee

He was blamed for a controversy

He was previously president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines and EVP and COO of Golden Star

https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/ is a different news agency writing about the same event with the same information, so I believe it counts as the same source as the above for WP:GNG purposes:

Owiredu is board chairman of the GCB Bank

He is also chairman of the credit sub-committee

He was blamed for a controversy

He was previously president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines and EVP and COO of Golden Star

https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu has the following information and lists "GNA" as a source (which is unclear as a reliable source):

Owiredu is president and chairman of the local board of directors of Golden Star Resources as of 2020

He is a patron of the Accra Mining Network

He has been in the mining business for more than 30 years as of 2020

He is the former president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines

He is committed to helping communities in mining areas

https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Daniel-Owiredu-is-the-mining-personality-of-the-Year-2017-604726 is significant. I won't try to mine that source for information because there's plenty. Its reliability is unclear, but usually high enough for notability purposes.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/23708/owiredu-appointed-md-of-agc.html seems significant. It seems quite promotional, but I'm not sure if it's a press release. Again, reliability is unclear.

Owiredu is the managing director of SAG

He became managing director of ASC's Obuasi Mine

He attended Adisadel College, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, University of Strathclyde

He is a mechanical engineer

He joined ASC as an engineer in 1984

He became chief engineer underground after almost 17 years

He helped with the AMEP, which helped turn ASC into a multinational company

He became manager of ASC's Bibiani Gold Project in 1996

"Experts" think his appointment is a good idea

https://www.myjoyonline.com/daniel-owiredu-promoted-to-evpcoo-of-golden-star/ is insignificant and almost certainly a press release, just copy/paste the first paragraph into a google search

Owiredu became EVP and COO of Golden Star on 1 January 2014

He was president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines

I'll hold off on !voting for now.

Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My threshold for significant coverage will be "Can I write 50 words about Owiredu using this source?" Per the WP:SIZERULE, we should try to get stubs over 150 words. And I look for three reliable sources as a minimum unless there are two extraordinary sources. So 50 words per source.

Source assessment table prepared by [[User:PrinceTortoise]]
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Three stepping down as EVP sources	These seem like press releases. Several different publications have very similar wording but conflicting or absent indications of the original source.	Myjoyonline is the second-most trusted new website in Ghana, and there is no reason a press release would be wrong in this case.	The source does not discuss the subject in detail.	✘ No
Modern Ghana "GCB Board Chairman Accused"	Expresses criticisms, so probably not a press release.	Claims editorial oversight, cites the Daily Guide as its source.	Can't contribute as a unique source because it is based on the Daily Guide article.	✘ No
Daily Guide "GCB Board Chairman Hot"	Expresses criticisms, so probably not a press release.	Major newspaper, so hopefully reliable.	The article discusses the subject directly, especially towards the end, and with sufficient detail.	✔ Yes
Business Ghana "Accra Mining Network honours Daniel Owiredu" but see [185] for more information on source	Probably not if Accra Mining also published it.	If it's not independent, then it would be strange if it were unreliable.	Not enough encyclopedic information.	✘ No
Ghana Web "Daniel Owiredu is the mining personality of the Year 2017"	Claims that a journalist wrote this, no evidence of being a press release.	reliable enough on uncontroversial topics	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
Modern Ghana "Owiredu appointed MD of AGC"	Cites Graphic, though I can't find the original source.	Claims editorial oversight, and assuming "Graphic" refers to the Daily Graphic, reliable	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
My Joy Online "Daniel Owiredu promoted to EVP/COO of Golden Star"	Identical promotional articles are found all over the internet.	second-most trusted news website in Ghana	Not enough encyclopedic information.	✘ 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}}.

I think that's three sources contributing to meeting the general notability guideline. Keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 22:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. If anyone finds a suitable wiki to transwiki this to, I'm happy to email the source code so you can do that - just ask. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. automobile production figures

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

WP:NOTSTATS with no inline citations and mostly essay content in the lead, and arbitrarily cut off at 2000. WP:SYNTH may also be a concern because the sources used might have different methodologies for estimating production in a given model year. PROD contested because:

Objecting to deletion, there are citations, and this information doesn't appear available elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides valuable information, I'm not sure why this should be deleted
— User:97.176.15.217 22:41, 31 October 2024

But "valuable information" and "not available elsewhere" are not valid justifications for collections of data, especially a year-by-year breakdown over an entire century that does not include all companies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a relic of an earlier era that would be more useful as tabular data on Commons. After 19 years, it's only linked to by 3 articles - two of them as improper circular references rather than useful wikilinks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and nom. I am sure someone else has collected these figures before but it won't have the significant coverage to sustain such a list. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news media does cover which are the bestselling vehicles of the year. Google news search for bestselling vehicles in America and each year, finds some results in reliable sources giving significant coverage to this. We have articles for List of best-selling automobiles and List of automobile sales by model. List of countries by motor vehicle production exist as well. This list just shows how many vehicles were made in America by each company year by year. Does production per country get coverage, or just global sales? Dream Focus 07:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that just be WP:SYNTH issues? In which case I would argue just for a redirect to the automobile sales by model list as a potential target. Conyo14 (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that this entry is clearly not supported by WP:NOTSTATS, but is there some place where this kind of information can be retained? It would be a shame to simply throw away painstakingly collected stats like these. As per WP:SYNTH concerns, it is easy enough to add a note that the numbers may reflect different measuring methods and so on. I often see that in published works and listings as well. Mr.choppers | ✎ 16:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly valuable information. Effort should be made to improve and expand.

The table format is hard to use. It should be reformatted into a table of year and manufacturer.

If the decision is made to delete the date, it would be valuable to reallocate to pages for each manufacturer.

As a historical reference, it serves a valuable role for research and education. Ed Tate (talk) 21:05, 30 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 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kheyrollah Ghahramani

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

Fails notability, he probably won some youth medals but achieved nothing in major events in senior level. The article claims he won two silver at 2012 and 2013 Asian Senior Championship but that's not correct and he never even made it to those competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure how much help it is, but this source suggests he did in fact have a silver at the Asian championships and a bronze at world championship. [186] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this source fails to mention these medals are in cadet level. this is his resume in UWW database. as I said he never won anything special in senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Sports2021, lacks notable accomplishments, in my opinion the subject fails notability. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant coverage and no achievements that would meet any SNG. Success in youth events is not sufficient for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2025 (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 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Yarahmadi

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

Fails notability. just being a coach in youth level in a non-Olympic sport is far from being notable. this looks like WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the coverage is significant and independent. All of the references mention him as coach of national youth teams but only in the context of the team preparing for competitions, him announcing results, or competitors being invited to training camps. He is either being interviewed or mentioned in one sentence as the national junior team coach. That doesn't show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, not wiki notable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:15, 27 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 01:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Midwin

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

I can't find any extended discussion of this living person, or any distinction making her automatically notable. Databases record her having had a professional beach volleyball career; she has appeared once or twice in Playboy publications/websites; she ran for local office once. I reduced the article in this edit, removing some poor sources (a magazine search, a Getty images search, a brief TV segment via YouTube) and some unreferenced personal information, but I conclude that notability can't be demonstrated. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Fashion, Volleyball, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG under WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NMODEL. QEnigma talk 14:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV of this BLP either from newspapers.com or multiple web searches. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any significant coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:37, 27 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 Allan Children's Foundation. ✗plicit 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kato

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

The sources fail WP: GNG or the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are either promotional and puff piece like this or article about his foundation like [187]. I also spotted PR sources farming here. This source and this source are two promotional pieces published on the same day with same contents but on two different news media. Same goes with this this and this. Same contents but different dates on two different news media. It is also interesting to know that 77 percent of all the sources used (7 out of 9) were published in July, 2024. 57 percent out of the 77% (4 sources) were published in one day. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Allan Children's Foundation - The sources for the article (especially here and here) definitely look like source farming, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:GNG, for his name or "1BigAllan". I removed the promotional content from it but I still don't think it qualifies for a seperate article from Allan Children's Foundation. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allan Children's Foundation: as an ATD. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Subject fails WP:BLP1E. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the other editors. Subject fails WP: GNG or the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. Redirecting to Allan Children's Foundation would be good. Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:51, 29 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 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine McBroom

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

Non-notable attorney, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Every source in the article is either primarily about a client or is a primary source, with the only other source being a local news article about the foundation of a law firm (link). WP:BEFORE search yields the sources used in the article or gossip about an unrelated person with a similar name. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Firecat93 (talk) 06:47, 25 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.