Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 09	August 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1866 Finnish typhus epidemic

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, specifically the lack of significant coverage. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. The role of diseases in the famine is discussed at https://www.duodecimlehti.fi/duo10652 (in Finnish) which includes some offline references that could be used (e.g. Turpeinen 1986, Pitkänen 1993; but I don't actually have access to these). Making such a strict separation between the famine and the diseases associated with it does not seem very natural, and it would be better to discuss this in the parent article, which gives the proper context for the epidemic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator initially placed a PROD tag (with the same rationale) before later taking it to AfD — with the PROD tag remaining as well. Since it is up for AfD, I have procedurally deproded. Notwithstanding that, I offer no opinion regarding the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. While there looks to be plenty of Finnish literature to support a notability pass, based on a (admittedly very brief) literature search the typhus appears to have been just one of multiple diseases rampant around the time of the famine. If this was a long and well-developed article, I'd see an argument for keeping it separate, but it's not and thus I think handling this in the broader context is better for our readers. And nothing prevents a future split if the relevant content somehow expands to overshadow there rest of the famine article. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. As creator of the article, I agree with the merge suggestion and the rationale given above. But I'd like to call CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath's attention to Ljleppan's point that this article easily passes GNG if you look for Finnish-language sources (and probably Swedish or Russian). I'd encourage CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath to consider this kind of possibility before proposing articles for deletion in future. Alarichall (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall I will definitely keep this in mind moving forward! I also support the merge, with the possibility that someone who is fluent in these languages and English could make a separate page in the future. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll be happy to perform the merge, if no-one else does it, but I think I'm supposed to wait for someone to close this discussion before doing that, right? Alarichall (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall I do believe you have to wait, but I'd be more than happy with you doing the merge. The only issue I would consider is that the lead sentence for the typhus page is marked as ^{[citation needed]} so it might be worth looking into how to source that better. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868 makes sense; it’s notable but the target article could use the information and citation. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 16 August 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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ski and snowboard locks

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Any salvageable content can be transferred over to Ski and Snowboard. Novemberjazz 23:07, 10 August 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 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that it doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. The contents look simply like separate dictionary entries for different type of locks. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS. Popular and notable products are reviewed in magazines such as Popular Mechanics and Consumer Reports, as well as Amazon and other major websites. There’s nothing here. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 16 August 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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Singh Kothari

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

BLP of an engineer created by a likely meatpuppet. Contains swathes of unsourced claims and no clear claim of notability despite many expansive statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, and Indiana. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sign of notability. His LinkedIn says "refer wikipedia" for information so this is likely some attempt to promote. Surprised it survived this long. C F A 💬 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a distinguished undergraduate alumni award [1] is enough and that's all I can find of any note. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- within the huge amount of cruft there's the one distinguished alum award which counts towards notability; a second piece of evidence at that level would be enough to push me over the line to keep. If it does do that, I'll probably just burn the current prose and start again. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:02, 14 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Serr

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Article was created 16 years ago by User:Jeff serr@yahoo.com, who remarkably, still regularly edits their article/resume. High and low I have search for sources to support notability, without success. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hyper local sourcing [2], nothing we can use to show notability for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BASIC. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Mostly self-published sources and directories appear on basic internet search. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:38, 15 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Universi

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

Stub article that seems to be little more than a dictionary definition - a search for sources indicates that there may not be much scope for well-sourced expansion. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Astronomy. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a disambiguation page, but with no links. Maybe the spanish book of that name is notable? Not sure. --C messier (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArkHyena (talk) 07:31, 14 August 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 18:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking of the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

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

Recommend draftification - article currently violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Politics, and Politicians. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this will pass WP:NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Maybe once we have actual information on what is in the leaks and if Iran is really behind it, the article can be more than stub-length.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. It’s too soon for us to tell objectively if this is true, false, a hoax, or history. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 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 Jamshed Akhtar as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of Our Origins

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

When this page was made, there may have been a source about it that was reliable (it could be unreliable for all I know). Now it is a permanent dead link, and more than that it is the only review available, failing NBOOK (which needs two). I have found nothing else except a handful of fringe-looking hits on Google Books and one very good source that discusses the author but only mentions this book in passing (I have added that source to author's page though as it is not in good shape). Redirect to author Jamshed Akhtar? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's also what looks to be coverage (maybe a review?) at [3], presumably published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought. However, I can't accurately assess what the content actually is, since my copy-paste isn't able to properly copy this sort of text to Google Translate. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 Good catch! According to DeepL this is what the review says: "The author of the book is Jamshed Akhtar, an Indian writer and researcher specializing in electrical engineering with an interest in the study of religion, and a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy of India. The book presents exciting information about the origin of life and man extracted from his analysis of the words of the Holy Quran. We learn how the first molecule of life was created on planet Earth, what was the mechanism involved, where did this event take place on the primordial earth, and what happened next? It tells us how life is related to man, how the first human being and his partner were created, and where they started their lives from the beginning. The research also discusses creatures such as the jinn and angels and the concept of paradise for Adam, within the parameters of the Qur'an and modern physics. The book discusses the case that revelation is an extraterrestrial phenomenon, and offers a mechanism for verifying information that has the potential to anchor the perennial debate between creationists and evolutionists."

This, IMO, does not help its case much, this is basically just summing up what the book says. Less a review and more the "Book Notes" describing books you sometimes encounter in western journals as well (in fact, the arabic section title seems to translate to that). PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added it to the author's page though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect: I also have not been able to find any sources (Scholar, Kirkus, Booklist, LJ, ProQuest). ~~Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)~~ Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade Opinion on redirect? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a self-published book. Previous instances had been deleted as promotional, and Jimfbleak had placed a cogent set of points on the contributing editor's talk page: User_talk:CuriousJM#Reply. I tagged this instance with a Notability query in 2012 and that concern hasn't improved since. This is effectively a book blurb; I don't see that Wikipedia should be providing Createspace-adjunct services. Fails WP:NBOOK. As to the question of a redirect, in the absence of sources demonstrating that this book is significantly associated with the term, I don't think that a general phrase like this title should be redirecting to the author of a self-published book. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AllyD, thanks for ping. as above, non-notable and basically a promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD @Jimfbleak I disagree with a proposal for deletion instead of redirect because the book is briefly covered in two reliable sources (including one from Bloomsbury Academic). While the title of the book is general there is nothing else notable under that title so I don't see why it needs to be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamshed Akhtar (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Boy Named 68818

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

I could not find any reviews or sigcov covering the book. All the evaluative material is sourced from the book's own website or the book itself which is not usable. There are two passing news article mentions in articles about the author and nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reviews found in LJ, SLJ, PW, Kirkus, Booklist, Shelf Awareness, Scholar, or ProQuest. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and lack of reviews from independent sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin 1942: The Japanese Attack on Australia

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

I am unable to find any sources that discuss this book in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. I found two sentences of coverage in this article:
Darwin was strongly under-defended and hardly prepared, and in just two hours it was basically incapacitated as a forward base for the Allies. The Australians suffered extensive losses in aircraft as well as 236 people killed. Yet, less than a month later, Darwin was operational again and a staging point of retaliatory attacks by the RAAF, although it is still surprising that Darwin was so ill-prepared. As Bob Alford indeed states in his excellent Darwin 1942: The Japanese Attack on Australia, after the great successes of the Japanese, 'It was evident that an attack on Australia was more of whether and not if' (p. 30). Illustrated with many excellent photographs and above all stunning art work, Alford provides a much-welcome study of a little-known campaign, and Osprey is to be applauded for daring to take the risk of initiating a study on such a relatively small-scale battle.
Cunard (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any reviews, and little coverage apart from what is mentioned above. Fails WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danda Rawat

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

No indication that the subject meets the academic notability guideline, as they are an associate professor without a title that satisfies the criteria. I'm also not seeing evidence that their work is highly cited. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Engineering, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. On Rawat's Google Scholar profile [4] the first two items are co-edited volumes and the third is a survey paper. The actual research contributions start at the fourth item. But I think there are still enough well-cited research contributions (albeit in a high-citation field) to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. ACM Distinguished Speaker is not enough for #C3 but it is also suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to neutral, leaning weak delete because the promotional history of editing is a significant problem and the weak evidence for notability listed in my comment above, while valid, does not outweigh that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @David Eppstein Yeah you're right here but I also added his individual research contributions in an article. Besides, I got that what you want to describe, I will see what else could be added to make that more notable Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TechnoSquirrel69 Thanks for reviewing this article. I understand what you mean by, I will try my best to make it notable by adding more sources and depth information about the subject Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @TechnoSquirrel69 I want you to revert the tag for "Nominated for deletion". You could had add the other tags for the notability or you can use the tag for the lag of sources. It's just a humble request. Besides, I will make sure to follow all the guidelines accordingly. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shariq Khan 1, I just want to note that the subject's notability is not within your control as an editor; their notability will remain the same regardless of the state of their article. The articles for deletion procedure requires that the deletion notice remain at the top of the article for the duration of the discussion, which will last at least a week. If the article is kept at the end of the discussion, the tag will be removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69 Yeah i can understand that but the subject has done a lot in his career and i think there shouldn't be any notable issue for publishing an article according to Wikipedia guidelines. It might take bit time to get well managed and notable. Thanks to you for guiding me in this particular area. Also it would be really great for me if you could help by guiding me what else should i add to make the subject notable, I am still in learning process and that's the reason i am trying to publish articles on some random notable subjects. Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, adding material to the article will not make the subject notable. To become notable as an academic, the subject needs recognition by his peers: heavy citation to his publications, fellowship in major scholarly societies, named professorship or distinguished professor title, and the like. See WP:PROF. Nothing we do here on Wikipedia is likely to have much effect on any of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @David Eppstein yeah I know that and I am adding citations as well and I also added citations on the previous materials you can check that. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The at-best marginal argument for passing WP:PROF#C1 is outweighed by the vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @XOR'easter I am totally disagreed with that point Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement because there is nothing in the article which triggers anything for an advertisement, spam or something. Besides, the argument for passing WP:PROF#C1 the article meets most of the notability guidelines for academics which can be quite enough for the subject's notability. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A classic example of a marginal publication record that is borderline for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else to demonstrate notability. When a BLP is borderline I look to see if there are significant peer awards or other recognition. I see nothing that is convincing. For Shariq Khan 1, arguing here does nothing, you need to improve the article to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe, get the subject to up their game. Easier said than done, I know. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Ldm1954 Okay I understand i will try to manage that according to the notability guidelines Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep The citation record for WP:PROF#C1 is indeed borderline, but I tend to favor keeping a borderline case because it seems possible that things will become more definitive before too much longer. But it's absolutely true that none of the other criteria are met. For example, none of the awards listed on the page support notability - they are all either internal awards, minor awards, or grant awards (something professors earn for doing what professors do). The page is also in need of a serious overhaul, not only to remove the tripe but also to make the rest of it form a coherent biographical narrative and provides a clear explanation of the subject's achievements. Qflib (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others above that this is a marginal C1 case and with XOR'easter that this would need to be fundamentally rewritten. This can be cleanly recreated in draftspace once notability can be demonstrated. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 17 August 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 and redirect‎ to Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). ✗plicit 14:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samer al-Hajj

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

I don't see any credible claim of notability here; press reports merely describe him as a Hamas official.Search throws up less than nothing TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search among RSes brings up nothing on the subject besides the assassination, which itself doesn't seem overly significant in the scope of the war, so the article seems to fail WP:BLP1E. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Kip and redirect page to Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) Prodrummer619 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Kip and redirect page per Prodrunner. Kierzek (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable. PersusjCP (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
u r zionist? Aria.takavar57 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable, and informative. I didn't know about it until I read it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria.takavar57 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 August 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. Consensus is that this museum is not notable. All participants except the article creator are of that view. Sandstein 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotter Museum-Gallery

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

Hyper-local museum that is local and about local things. Since it's an article about a company or organization, the relevant guideline for evaluation is WP:NCORP which this article does not sufficiently pass, especially on the lack of significant independent reliable coverage in media beyond the local audience base. Graywalls (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and California. Graywalls (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Not notable. Article was set up by a now-blocked user who recently commented as follows on his talk page: "Yes, I set the Notability bar lower because I think certain people and places need recognition" [5]. That says it all, when something in his local area isn't notable, he sets up a Wikipedia article to give them more recognition. Cart before horse. Fortunately, it isn't Greg Henderson who "sets the notability bar" on Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12:, the nomination isn't based on who created the article, but based on having the appearance of creation of a non-notable local feature.Having said that, this article isn't Greg related. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; Greg never touched this article. That's why it's usually best to stay focused on sources and notability guidelines in AfD discussions. Left guide (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Axad12, did you look closely at this article and its page history? Do you want to rethink your "vote"? The page creator is not blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My error here was an exceptionally stupid and incompetent one for which there can be no excuses. I have struck my vote in its entirety. My apologies. Axad12 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, I wrote this article. I am not related to Trotter's Museum. The Trotter Museum primarily focuses on early California art, particularly paintings. These artworks are created by renowned artists whose works are sold at auction houses for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, it's inaccurate to claim that the museum is hyper-local. The article includes links to these artists, making it easy to verify that they are not local. For example, Granville Redmond, a deaf painter, is represented in the museum and is a beloved figure in the deaf community. Charlton Fortune is one of the most important American Impressionists. The museum features these paintings as part of its permanent collection, unlike the Monterey Museum of Art (which has early California art but does not have it in their permanent exhibit). There are numerous books that mention Trotter's Museum and Gallery contributions, including prominent works by Scott Shields, the director of the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, which I referenced in the Wikipedia article. These are nationally recognized publications.Puncinus (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Puncinus:, do you mind naming three best sources you believe to confer the notability of this company so other editors don't have to go through so many sources? If the subject is notable, there should be 2-3 sources that demonstrate the notability. Because this is a company, it is expected to be able to meet WP:NCORP standards with WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD in mind. A whole bunch of shallow/insignificant coverages can not substitute for in depth, significant coverage on the subject in order to demonstrate notability just like you can't substitute twenty 0.05 carat diamond for a 1 carat diamond. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/784242-winter-2017/203? this is substantive coverage (1 carat diamond) Puncinus (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question I can find no sourcing outside of Wiki mirrors, which is odd because there should be some sourcing including the Shields ones currently referenced. Was it known under other names besides the Trotters' antique shop? Clearly not passing N:ORG at the moment but wonder if something we're missing so not !voting as of yet. Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete based on the sources identified at bottom. Unfortunately inventories and auction sales together with publications by the gallery aren't enough. I don't have time during this run but if I find sourcing later I'm going to work on this in draft space since it should be notable.
Star Mississippi 11:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice that you examine in full what I wrote. This article https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/784242-winter-2017/203? is not auction sale or inventory. Also, I linked an interview. I also provided references to 23 books in which the gallery is mentioned in such a way that it is clear that it is notable nationally. There is more sources if one googles "Trotter Galleries", or use google books and google scholar. I provided list of some of them. All of it establishes notability. 16:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken that there is no sourcing. Trotter Gallery is mentioned in numerous books about early California paintings and travel guides. Here is a partial list (at the end of the reference I added how it is quoted in the text):

List of sources

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Patricia Trenton, Sandra D'Emilio. Independent Spirits: Women Painters of the American West. University of California Press, 1995. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel.

Steven A. Nash, Bill Berkson, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Facing Eden: 100 Years of Landscape Art in the Bay Area. University of California Press, 1995. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove.

Scott A. Shields. Artists at Continent's End: The Monterey Peninsula Art Colony, 1875-1907. Crocker Art Museum, 2006. - Terry and Paula Trotter of Trotter Galleries.

EC Pennington. A Southern Collection. Morris Museum of Art, 1992. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, California.

WS Morris. A Southern Collection. Morris Museum of Art, 1993. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, California.

Nick Kanas. Star Maps: History, Artistry, and Cartography. Springer, 2019. - Trotter Galleries in Carmel and Pacific Grove, CA.

Lora Ann Sigler. Clothes Make the Character: The Role of Wardrobe in Early. McFarland, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.

Art of California, Vol. 4, Issues 1-2, 1991. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.

Worth, Vol. 17, Issues 1-6, 2008. - Trotter Galleries, CA.

Antiques, Vol. 158, 2000. - Trotter Galleries.

Monterey Life, Vol. 10, Issues 7-12, 1989. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.

Collector's Guide, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2000. - Trotter Galleries.

Wendy Van Wyck Good. Sisters in Art: The Biography of Margaret, Esther, and Helen. Prospect Hill Press, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.

Nancy M. Evans, Neil A. Evans. Exploring the Monterey Peninsula: Big Sur, Carmel, Monterey. John Muir Publications, 1994. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.

Peter Hiller. Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith, 2021. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.

Art Now Gallery Guide, Vol. 8, Issues 4-6, 1988. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.

Nancy Dustin Wall Moure, Historical Collections Council. Historical Collections Council Newsletters: January 1999-May 2006. Historical Collections Council, 2006. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel.

Phil Kovinick, Marian Yoshiki-Kovinick. An Encyclopedia of Women Artists of the American West. University of Texas Press, 1998. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel, CA.

SA Shields. Legends of Bohemia: The Monterey Peninsula and its Early Art Colony, 1875–1907. 2004. - Terry and Paula Trotter of Trotter Galleries.

Nick Kanas. Terrestrial and Celestial Pictorial Maps. In Star Maps: History, Artistry, and Cartography. Springer, 2019. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel and Pacific Grove, CA.

SA Shields, J Burton-Carvajal. Will Sparks: California's Mission Painter. tfaoi.org. - Trotter Galleries.

E Kornhauser, S Vittoria, RJ Geary. Jules Tavernier and the Elem Pomo. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.

S Landauer, WH Gerdts, P Trenton. The Not-so-still Life: A Century of California Painting and Sculpture. University of California Press, 2003. - Trotter Galleries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus, could you please identify the three BEST independent secondary reliable sources that provide SIG COV, along with links? That would really help. Significant coverage ABOUT the museum-gallery is needed, not just mentions, or sources that are about the artists or others affiliated with the institution. For example, fully independent newspaper articles, academic journal articles, magazine articles, book chapters, etc. that provide in-depth coverage about the museum gallery itself. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "Trotter Galleries", and pursued "google books" and "google scholar". There are no articles in the New York Times or LA times. But the gallery is clearly prominent in the Early California art. For example:

Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian American Art Museum): The Smithsonian Institution catalogs some of the paintings from the Trotter Museum. Example: Smithsonian Art Inventories Catalog https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!406485!0 https://americanart.si.edu/research/inventories

Auction House Sales Christie’ and Bonham's: Paintings from Trotter Galleries' collections have been sold and bought through Christie’s and Bonham's auction houses (google "providence Trotter Galleries")

There are publications by Trotter Galleries related to Early California paintings. One example (they can be examined in WorldCat book catalogue): Early Visions IV: American and California Art from the 19th and Early 20th Centuries; Selected Works from the Collection of Trotter Galleries

Here is a link to open publication which I used in my Wikipedia article https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/784242-winter-2017/203? https://carmelmagazine.com/archive/20su/capturing-california-with-a-creative-eye

Here is an interview with Trotter https://www.facebook.com/montereyart.org/videos/557807865598244/

From the 23 references I provided previously one can see that paintings from their collection were exhibited in major California museums such as, for example, Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

None of the above confer notability. All the Smithsonian link proves is that the museum acquired a painting from the Trotter Galleries ~~The Smithsonian catalog is not independent~~, nor are the auction house listings, nor are the publications by the Trotter Gallery, nor is Facebook a reliable source and interviews are primary sources. The piece in Carmel Magazine seems like sponsored content / native advertising or an advertorial, especially since Trotter advertises in the magazine itself. The last part of the "article" is a clear "tell" that this is the case. Netherzone (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 additional book quotes that establish national notability: [Missions of Will Spark, Santa Barbara Historical Museum, 2011, ISBN0970494092] ~"Trotter Galleries in Carmel and Pacific Grove, became involved early on in the rediscovery of California’s art heritage. In addition to collecting and dealing in artists of early California for over thirty years, they have also worked closely with numerous museums and institutions in promoting public appreciation of the role played by late 19th and early 20th-century artists in the evolution of California's rich cultural heritage.

[Osher Life Long Institute, California State University Monterey Bay, 2022], "Trotter Galleries has maintained its reputation as the preeminent source for collectors of works by prominent early California artists. Owners Terry and Paula are nationally known for their expertise in early California art and have been extensively involved in contributing to and sponsoring exhibitions of historical artwork."

Puncinus (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment above about your list of sources such as connected (non-independent) sources and unreliable sources like Facebook, and advertorial/native advertising as sources which are PR / PROMO, not serious journalism. Do you have links for these two book sources? The first sounds like an acknowledgement, the second sounds like PROMO. Without being able to read these in the context of the book, it's impossible to determine if they are coverage that would make a difference.

I'm a little confused why it's called a Museum-Gallery. It seems that Trotter is a commercial gallery owned by two people who have put up works from their own private collection for sale in their storefront for-profit gallery. I see from their website that they are affiliated with the Fine Art Dealers Association, but that would not make the enterprise a museum. I don't think a museum would have a link on their website like "Sell Your Art" with a list of artists with works for sale. Are they accredited as a museum or affiliated with a professional organization such as the AAM, or do they just call themselves a museum (even tho their website is called Trotter Galleries)? As a business, they would need to pass WP:NCORP criteria and WP:GNG for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, references listed are either mentions-in-passing or rely entirely on quotes/interview with the owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly long and independent article in the Carmel Magazine which I am referencing in WP article. This is the main source which I reference. In addition, I have added references (here, in this discussion) to their collection which were published in serious art books. The reason I added those is to establish that the collection is notable in the sense of quality of collection itself. My reasoning is/was that if paintings from that collections are on loan to other important museums - then the Trotter gallery collection is notable. Instead Wikipedians use it against notability, because these are just short mentiones. I can not provide open access links to every citation that I did, because many books are not online. But I used "google scholar" and "google books" to create this list, so you can go there and search "trotter galleries" and you can verify me. I can provide ISBN numbers. As for your confusion why it is Museum-Gallery. They have two locations. The Pacific Grove location is a Museum. It is arranged in thematic order. It is a permanent collection. You can come there and one of the owners (Terry Tortter) is acting as your docent. The entry is free of charge. I do not know why he is doing it, perhaps because he loves art and tries to give back his knowledge and expertise. He gives often talks about California art in local history associations. This is a real thing. 22:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

Why do you say that none of the references meet criteria. What about this one https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/784242-winter-2017/203? There are no quotes based on owners in it and it is an independent article. In other references which I provided there are no quotes by the owners. 19:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

Puncinus You say this Carmel Magazine article written by Mitchel Charfield is an "independent article". Perhaps you are missing the point that as per WP:ORGIND, we require "Independent Content" which must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The content must also be "in-depth about the company. None of the content in that article meets this requirement as it relies entirely on information provided by the Trotters and/or the company itself. The article could rightly be described as a "puff profile". It simply promotes and describes the gallery and the paintings in order to encourage visitors and does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This promotionally-toned article on a commercial gallery does not meet notability criteria for businesses. Please see my comments above regarding the sources which are either primary, non-independent, PR, or do not provide SIGCOV. What the gallery has to say about itself or the work it shows do not contribute to notability. Does not pass WP:NCORP nor WP:SIRS, and fails WP:GNG due to passing mentions rather than in-depth, fully independent significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken that the article has promotional tone about a commercial gallery. The Pacific Grove Trotter Museum Gallery is not selling paintings. It is a museum. It is divided into section, each describing individual artists important in early California painting period. It is private educational institution. There is a gallery in Carmel which sells paintings, but these are independent organizations. The article I wrote describes Museum. There is independent, in depth article https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/784242-winter-2017/203? I wonder why you are ignoring it? 19:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)
@Puncinus: Please read and listen to what others have to say. You've presented a link to the Carmel Magazine article in this discussion a total of five times, including twice after Netherzone (an experienced editor with a virtually perfect record at assessing sources in these types of deletion discussions) said The piece in Carmel Magazine seems like sponsored content / native advertising or an advertorial, especially since Trotter advertises in the magazine itself. The last part of the "article" is a clear "tell" that this is the case. Netherzone has not ignored that source. Left guide (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus, please see this article to understand what sponsored content or native advertising is: Native advertising. (Also see: Advertorial for a similar marketing/PR strategy. In a nutshell, its a paid-for or traded-for "article" in a publication that appears to be editorial content, but is actually an ad mascarading as a feature article. It's quite common in these types of magazines with heavy coverage of local businesses. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted this article several times because none of the people voting mentioned that they read it. Instead there are comments that it is a "commercial gallery", that the gallery "says about yourself". Nobody commented on the article in the Carmel Magazine. This is why I quoted it in responses to each comment. I do not understand why you dismiss it as sponsored content? That way we can dissmis almost all articles about art galleries. Besides this article in Carmel Magazine I quoted 23 books which reference Trotter gallery. You may think that these are short mentiones, which do not rise to "full source" but they do establish notability in the sense of quality of the objects presented in the Trotter Gallery. What is strange here is that it is a private Museum and many of you can not belive that there may be a person running a Museum for the love of art and the region, because we suspect that everything has to commercial. But, this place is not commercial, the entry is free, it is open to public, and is educational. The museum is arranged in thematic order which presents paintings, books, original poems by painters, artifacts.It has section on history of Monterey including Del Monte Hotel, Steinbeck, Ed Ricketts, and Effie Fortune, Granville Redmond. 22:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

Puncinus with all due respect I did read the Carmel Magazine source which is how I made the assessment that it is business PR, not a critical/analytical article that has art historical value. (I'm pretty sure all the participants did.) The Carmel Mag article relies heavily on what the Trotters say about themselves; the author is not an art historian or art theorist, he is a self-described self-employed musician and free lance writer. If that's the best source we have, it is definitely not enough to pass WP notability criteria for businesses which is stricter than just the general notability guideline. Additionally I performed a BEFORE search and found precisely zero references for "Trotter Museum", only mentions of Trotter Galleries. Regarding the Pacific Grove space, the Carmel Mag piece mentions that some of the works are for sale and some are Mr. & Mrs. Trotter's private collection that they purchased from LACMA when LACMA was deaccessioning their collection, getting rid of works of "low value". It's nice the Trotters bought the pieces are showing their collection to the public while also selling art, but that does not make the gallery into a museum; they are clearly a commercial gallery. Thank you for presenting the list of books in the collapsed window, it probably took some time to put that together. Unfortunately the books contain only name-check mentions either in the acknowledgements, a photo credit or a name check in a footnote that the provenance of a work is from the Trotter Galleries; like the Smithsonian, all that means is that the painting was either owned by or purchased from Trotter. This does not confer notability and there is no narrative content ABOUT the gallery itself. The publications/exhibition catalogues by Trotter are primary sources, published by the gallery itself. Again, that's great that they publish these catalogs as a sales tool, but it does not confer notability on the gallery. I know this is probably not the answer you would like to hear, and I'm sorry for that; know that these comments are not to be taken personally, this is just how discussions or debates occur at AfDs. It is no way a reflection on you as an editor. (BTW, I've added the unsigned template to several of your comments. The correct way to add your signature to a post is to type four tildes (this symbol: ~ ). That will automatically sign and time stamp your posts on talk pages.) Netherzone (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carmel Magazine article by Mitchel Chatfield doesn't seem to me as PR. Rather he reports about wide range of topics related to Carmel. For example, this source lists has +100 article about the local topics https://muckrack.com/michael-chatfield/articles written by him. His reporting is about the gallery, its holding, a brief history. Regarding your comment about lack of presence of of Trotter Museum on google. Indeed not too many with "Museum" phrase. However, I was able to locate some. For example, chamber of commerce in Monterey lists the Trotter Museum-Gallery https://business.pacificgrove.org/directory/Details/trotter-galleries-inc-2115324 and states the following: ”Trotter Museum-Gallery offers a free educationally enjoyable experience, open to the public, focusing on the region's rich artist and cultural heritage. Almost all of the 4,000 square foot building is exclusively devoted to preserving the past by informing the present, thus providing insights for the future. Within our historic displays, visitors have the opportunity to view original early artworks and rare treasures. Free admission.” California Art Club offers Trotter Museum-Gallery tours https://www.californiaartclub.org/event/monterey-bay-chapter-trotter-gallery-tour-and-asilomar-paint-sculpt-out/

As for your comment that it is not a museum but a business. The Pacific Grove location is organized as a museum. It has sections organized with artifacts (for example original letters), description of painters, books about the subject, pallets, easels, brushes of painters. It organizes educational tours and offers docent presentations (by Terry Trotter). As for the low value holdings. I have listed art books which reference these holdings and they were presented at the Crocker Art Museum, Laguna Beach museum, Irvine Museum as evidenced, for example, by books by Scott Shields (the director of the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento). As for Smithsonian listing of providence - it also can mean that the painting is hold by the Trotter Museum. By the way. I have noticed that you posted on my page that "The nature of some of your edits suggests that you may have a Conflict of Interest with some of the subjects you edit or articles you have created." I already stated that I do not have conflict of interest. Puncinus (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the notice I left on your user talk page about COI and WP:SELFCITE was not so much relative to this article as with some of the other article creations. It is considered best practices to respond to those notifications. Netherzone (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing this article (Trotter Museum) and we have disagreements. Then, on August 16, 2024 I got notification from you that "The nature of some of your edits suggests that you may have a Conflict of Interest with some of the subjects you edit or articles you have created." So I assumed that you think that I have conflict of interest regarding this article. To what notifications I am supposed to respond.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puncinus (talk • contribs)

Punctinus, I have added "unsigned" templates to ~~five~~ seven of your messages here. You have been an editor since 2016 and should know this by now. This is how you sign after each comment/message you make: Place four tildes - this symbol: ~ after your message or comment. The reason why this is important is so that the participants here and the community understands who is saying what, thus it helps clarify the discussion continuity. There is also a "button" at the bottom of the edited page that states: Sign your posts on talk pages (with a little box with 4 tildes in it). Thank you. Re: the message I left you on your talk page has been answered on that talk page. Again, this helps to clarity the threading, history and continuity of discussions. I hope this help to clarify things! Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ping to @Puncinus:, because above by Netherzone has a typo. Graywalls (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLEB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. C F A 💬 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list No grounds for a standalone article with the available sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: Another remnant of the looser non-GNG inclusion standards of 2009 in this topic area, which at times seemed to be more about existence (which is not, and has nothing to do with, notability) than the significant coverage required by the GNG. If SIGCOV existed (as opposed to the usual FCC databases, and brief mentions [that aren't currently in the article, but probably wouldn't be SIGCOV anyway]), it would have turned up by now; under today's standards, we no longer need anything more than an {{R to list entry}} here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 August 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece

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

Lack of any notability, merely married to somebody barely notable. TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the coverage of her wedding, which is extended, there are reviews of her 2019 book, coverage of her children's line, collaborations with different brands. The article is well-cited and provides coverage spanning a wide range of dates. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because multiple, independent, reliable sources cover the subject in detail over a range of aspects. Perhaps the nominator is thinking that there would not be such coverage if she were not married to royalty, or it is only because of her royal status that she has made her achievements. We do not have such criteria in our guidelines. Thincat (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is really a troublemaker, only targeting articles about irrelevant or deposed Greek royalty—just look at their AfD history. I don’t want to say anything about putting her sons' articles up for AfD, but I never expected the nominator to be so Superman as to nominate the titular Crown Princess of Greece for deletion. I was shocked. She is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and is more notable than the consorts of other now-deposed German royalty. Please do some research on Google first before making an AfD nomination. There is plenty of coverage that meets WP:GNG. Please don’t use AfD as a weapon—Wikipedia is not your stress-relief zone. Thanks. 45.132.235.203 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it ridiculous how this was even put up for deletion. There is more than enough coverage to make her notable so she meets WP:BASIC and therefore meets WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC from significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a notable person. The nominator clearly did not carry out any WP:BEFORE checks before nominating this. Someone should WP:SNOW close this.

The article subject has been given significant coverage by: The New York Times, The Times, El País, El Mundo, South China Morning Post, El Confidencial, El Español, Business Insider, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Gala, Tatler, Hello!, Point de Vue, Vanidades, Town & Country Magazine, Architectural Digest

-StellarHalo (talk) 05:44, 12 August 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 14:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee

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

There are no sources as of August 2024. エルコボラ (話す) 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. エルコボラ (話す) 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NORG. Only trivial mentions. C F A 💬 22:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that the nominator is globally blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 August 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 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games

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

There are no sources as of September 2017. エルコボラ (話す) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. エルコボラ (話す) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NORG. Only trivial mentions. C F A 💬 22:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that the nominator is globally blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination by sockpuppet‎. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Olympic Organizing Committee

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

There are no sources as of September 2017. エルコボラ (話す) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. エルコボラ (話す) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NORG. Couldn't find any significant coverage. Keep: the coverage below looks good enough for WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please make sure to search in the native language of articles you nominate for deletion. Here are three academic papers specifically about the organization in Korean: [6](pdf)[7][8]. Here's a history article that discusses the organization on a website run by National Institute of Korean History ([9]). I can search more upon request, but I'm certain there are more. The 1988 Olympics are considered a pivotal moment in South Korean history; it was heavily covered in the South Korean press. seefooddiet (talk) 07:19, 11 August 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 2000 Summer Olympics. Viable ATD supported by all participants, so no need to moot this due to blocked nom Star Mississippi 17:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games

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

There are no sources as of September 2017. エルコボラ (話す) 13:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. エルコボラ (話す) 13:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NORG. Couldn't find any significant coverage. C F A 💬 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SOCOG was the key organising event behind the Sydney Olympics - it existed for over 7 years, there would be plenty of material on the work that it carried out, though this is probably early internet days so much of it would be hard copy material, particularly in the NSW State or other libraries. It's simply ridiculous to say that it's not notable. At best it should be a redirect to 2000 Summer Olympics. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar or Google Books that wasn't primary or trivial mentions. I checked newspapers.com and there were only trivial mentions and job listings – no in-depth coverage. If someone finds enough secondary coverage to expand the article, I would be happy to change my vote. But we can't just say there is "probably coverage somewhere" if no one is willing to get it. At present, we're probably best off adding a short section to 2000 Summer Olympics with what little information is available. There is currently only one trivial namedrop that isn't even linked in that article. C F A 💬 14:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2000 Summer Olympics. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that the nominator is globally blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Redirect SOCOG was a very notable organisation in Australia, organising the best ever 2000 Sydney Olympics. Its merchandising designs are kept in the Powerhouse Museum, its archives are in the NSW state archives, there is a comprehensive final report on its activities. It does meet this part of WP:GNG "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." SOCOG had a considerable impact on athletics, culture and entertainment, recalling it ran a parallel arts festival. I can give the links to its archives, its collections kept in museums, its reports, the NSW legislation that set it up. The issue with the SOCOG article seems to be that it has no references, especially no secondary references and so it is a poorly written article. If another editor is able to find secondary references I am sure the article could be improved to show notability. For example there was some controversy around SOCOG and our national broadcaster, the ABC, reported regularly on it, such as a human rights discrimination case, the Minister for the Olympics getting bored at SOCOG meetings. I think that sometimes the nominators for deletion of Australian articles, don't look in the right places for sources. I just searched in the Wikipedia Library and got 3,273 hits in journals about SOCOG.

Alternatively, The information could be redirected to the 2000 Sydney Olympics article. Here are some sources about SOCOG. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/repealed/current/act-1993-067; https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/tp/files/9904/SOCOG%20July%201999%20-%20Oct%202001.pdf; https://collection.powerhouse.com.au/?objects%5Bquery%5D=SOCOG; https://researchdata.edu.au/nrs-15933-administrative-games-socog/2719419. Please excuse my messy comments, I find it difficult to use Edit Source. LPascal (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all primary sources, though. They may be useful for adding a short section to 2000 Summer Olympics, but don't help with establishing standalone notability per WP:NORG. C F A 💬 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still the 3,273 hits in journals about SOCOG I got on Wikipedia Library. If the original editor who drafted this brief article or another Australian editor wants to keep the article, I'm sure they could find plenty of secondary sources. SOCOG was in the news for years and had a great impact on sport and culture in Sydney. Here's just a few quick refs

Frawley S, Toohey K. The importance of prior knowledge: the Australian Olympic Committee and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sport in Society. 2009;12(7):947-966. doi:10.1080/17430430903053208Tripodi J, Hirons M.

Sponsorship Leveraging Case Studies-Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Journal of Promotion Management. 2009;15(1/2):118-136. doi:10.1080/10496490902907966

Chapter 3: Reconciliation in Olympism. In: Reconciliation in Olympism: Indigenous Culture in the Sydney Olympiad. Walla Walla Press; 1999:52-63. Accessed August 17, 2024. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

Stevenson D. Olympic Arts. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 1997;32(3):227-238. doi:10.1177/1012690297032003001direct=true&db=s3h&AN=44638865&site=eds-live&scope=site

Olympic Design: A Major Event in 2000 -- Design Issues. In: Olympic Countdown: Diary of the Sydney Olympics. Walla Walla Press; 1999:16-17. Accessed August 17, 2024. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-18/2000-sydney-olympics-legacy-hard-to-define-amid-fond-memories/12674748direct=true&db=s3h&AN=44657077&site=eds-live&scope=site

https://isoh.org/wp-content/uploads/JOH-Archives/JOHv17n1i.pdf

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/lawreport/socog-and-hreoc-jaidyn-leske-justice-denied/3560090

LPascal (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chia Black Dragon

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. toweli (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in some books here and here, which give critical evaluation of the series; also some sections in magazines [10]. Some are entries on the author but they primarily talk about the series. In any case if this is kept it should be retitled as a series and structured around that instead of the main character. I found several interviews with the author talking about the series and individual books on Newspapers.com and several things more or less saying it was published and little else. They contain little evaluative material and are questionable independence wise but would be useful for building the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I refocused the article from a character article to a fantasy series article, removing a bunch or OR and PLOT in the process. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added reception. The St. James source could be used a lot more, it's pretty extensive, however this is about as much work as I'm willing to do here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination due to the identification of sources. Thank you PARAKANYAA and sgeureka for improving the article. toweli (talk) 13:41, 17 August 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. Ignoring the banned sock(s), there is no objection to deletion. WP:G5 also applies here, which is why this isn't a soft delete. Owen× ☎ 12:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aguike

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and it has no enough reliable and secondary sources to meet the requirement for WP:GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally re-edited the 'AGUIKE' article when it was originally written. However, I must caution that there are those who parade themselves as editors on this platform who have altered and stripped the entire article, leaving it almost empty. These 'editors' have become obsessed with this article, making edits to create a void and then sending emails to the author asking for money to write a proper article. The author shared those emails with me. If there is one Nigerian musician who should be on Wikipedia, it is the man who now goes by the name 'AGUIKE'. He should be among the top ten. During his time in Nigeria, media houses did not have an online database. But if you google the man's name, there is enough evidence of his contributions to the entertainment industry and his accomplishments. Please remove the delete tag on this article. Tamarlewis (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamarlewis: How do you know Newyorkgm? If you received emails asking for money, please forward them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. C F A 💬 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it coincidence that @Tamarlewis and @Newyorkgm are having the same issues (removing maintenance tags and talking about people messaging them for payment) as documented on their talk page as a reply to @Shellwood and @CFA. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. But it is suspicious. Tamarlewis and Newyorkgm, do you have any comment? C F A 💬 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have better things to do with my time. I shared series of emails sent to me by various people parading as 'Editors'. It will soon be in public domain when all this is over. I don't know who to trust. Newyorkgm (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forward them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org? C F A 💬 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reach out to you about the recent developments regarding the article "AGUIKE." It's frustrating to hear that after making all the necessary adjustments and receiving approval, you now want to delete the article. It makes me question the authenticity of this platform and the decision-making process.

If you don't mind, could you please send me a private email address so I can share my concerns with you directly? I believe this issue needs to be addressed promptly before any further actions are taken.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Newyorkgm (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to comment in this discussion if you believe the article should be kept. The community will decide if the topic is notable. Emailing is not going to change anything. C F A 💬 19:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA, this address 'en-wp@wikipedia.org' is invalid. Tamarlewis (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org" is the correct address. C F A 💬 19:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above discussion may indicate fraud that violates Wikipedia policy, but it means little for the musician's notability. This guy hasn't helped his cause by performing under at least four names: Aguike, Allah-Bama, Saint Alabama, Emma Agu. All have appeared in the usual Nigerian gossip rags that look like legit music media but actually just reprint press releases. This can be seen in non-critical prose that was clearly written by the musician or his managers, such as "Youths across the globe are already dancing to Wajo (dance) which is his latest musical offering" ([11]) or "He’s credited to possess exceptional skills in reading musical notes and mastering various instruments" ([12]). If he's really as influential and classic as the article says, more reliable news outlets would have reported on it. Otherwise this article is an attempted resume for his organizational endeavors. He also did not headline Obama's inauguration; instead he was at an unaffiliated event that talked about the inauguration. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liar. The piece you have written here is nothing but character assassination and extremely unprofessional, to say the least. As an editor, you should not diminish individuals who have worked hard in different endeavors. You have access to visit the artist's personal website at www.aguike.com.

You also alleged that he did not headline the Inaugural ball. It is important to do proper research before spreading misinformation about others. See-[13]https://allafrica.com/stories/200901120544.html. The person known as AGUIKE is actually Emma Agu, and more information can be found at [14]https://aguike.com/aguike-explains-the-reason-for-change-of-name-by-franz-dickson/.

Please ensure that your facts are correct before tarnishing the reputation of a true Nigerian legend. You are free to criticize newspapers or use whatever language you prefer, but please do so responsibly. Newyorkgm (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520@Ibjaja055

As you persist with your conspiracy and efforts to discredit Aguike, it is important to note that between 1996 and 2001, the artist gained widespread attention in Nigeria, as evidenced by headlines in prominent Nigerian newspapers. He later relocated to New York City. Please refer to the publication that features him alongside Sunny Ade and Onyeka Onwenu.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunny_Ade_and_Emma_Agu.jpg

[[File:Aguike-alias allah b Newyorkgm (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkgm Nobody is discrediting and no one is doing any conspiracy. Be mindful of the way you address other editors. Notability is not enforced and there is difference between independent publication in reliable media and puffy piece. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520@CFA

Various factors necessitate why many musicians opt to rebrand themselves. Did you really refer to reputable publications like The Guardian, @This Day The Nation, Leadership, and Vanguard Newspapers as "Nigerian gossip rags"? Some Nigerian musicians living abroad choose to stay out of the spotlight and focus on their musical careers. Consider removing the article and refrain from criticizing the artist. Keeping the article on Wikipedia will not impact the artist's overall reputation or success. Tamarlewis (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian and Vanguard are both known for publishing undisclosed promotional content. C F A 💬 22:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA"The Guardian and Vanguard are both known for publishing undisclosed promotional content"?

You have exposed your true self. I do not have time for this unnecessary back and forth. I wrote an article that was not promotional, yet you became obsessed with it and stripped the entire content, leaving it naked. You are nothing but a bunch of scam artists. Newyorkgm (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA@Doomsdayer520@Ibjaja055@Shellwood

Hello Aguike,

I hope this email finds you well.

This is Asher from the Wiki Submissions, I assume you or someone else on your behalf tried to have a Wikipedia page with your name.

If you attempted to have a Wikipedia article, I'm writing to inform you that your request has been Refused, Published, or is "Pending."

We assist people and organizations who were facing difficulties creating their own Wikipedia pages. If you are still interested in having your own Wikipedia page you can get FREE consultancy from experts.

Please get back to me so I can provide more information if you're interested.

Asher

Consultant | Wiki Submissions

T: (518) 313-1242

M: (518) 313-1242

E: updates@Wikisubmissions.com www.WikiSubmissions.com

Wiki Submissions.

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 7:13 AM Wikipedia Page Creation <ritik.singh@idigitalakki.com> wrote:

Hi Sir,

We have a specialized moderator for Wikipedia so, it will tell the proper solution for publishing any page.so, my team will suggest Simple English Wikipedia then our team will transfer your page to the main Wikipedia.

Regards

Ritik On 2024-05-28 16:36, allah Bama wrote:

Are you indirectly telling me that the language used in this Wikipedia article of AGUIKE is not simple and well-detailed? If so, why should my organization publish this article on another Wikipedia page?

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 4:41 AM Wikipedia Page Creation <ritik.singh@idigitalakki.com> wrote:

Dear Allah,

Thanks for your time and attention .

Our team has reviewed your article and it has been approved. However, we noticed that your article currently has three tags. While we can attempt to remove these tags, we cannot guarantee complete removal at this stage. Therefore, we recommend that you first publish your article on Simple English Wikipedia. Once it is established there, we can facilitate its transfer to the main Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Ritik

On 2024-05-27 22:21, allah Bama wrote:

Thanks for your reply, it appears the current article got accepted. Pls check and let me know then we will take it from there.

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 1:15 AM Wikipedia Page Creation <ritik.singh@idigitalakki.com> wrote:

Hi Allah,

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for reaching out to us regarding your Wikipedia page. We understand your concerns and are here to assist you. However, we'd like to clarify our approach to this task.

After a careful analysis of your page and its history of rejections on Wikipedia, we believe that achieving approval on the standard English Wikipedia may be challenging due to previous setbacks. Therefore, we recommend an alternative approach to ensure the successful creation and publication of your content.

We can create and maintain your page on Simple English Wikipedia, an official Wikipedia project, and a part of Wikipedia. With our assistance, we can guarantee a 100% success rate in getting your page approved and live on Simple Wikipedia. Our team includes experienced editors with moderator accounts, which greatly increases the chances of your page being published successfully.

To proceed with this endeavor, our fee for creating and maintaining your page on Simple Wikipedia will be $750 USD. This amount can be divided into two payments:

1. An upfront payment of 50% ($375 USD) is required to initiate the work.

2. The remaining 50% ($375 USD) will be due upon the successful completion of the project when your page is live on Simple Wikipedia.

Please understand that this fee is for our professional services, including content creation, editing, and the administrative process required for Wikipedia publication. We are committed to delivering a high-quality result and ensuring that your information is presented accurately and adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.

If you agree to proceed with this approach and our proposed fee structure, please let us know, and we will provide you with the necessary instructions for making the upfront payment. Once the payment is received, our team will begin working on your page immediately.

Thank you for considering our assistance in this matter. We look forward to helping you achieve success with your Wikipedia page. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach out.

Thanks & regards

Ritik

On 2024-05-25 04:53, allah Bama wrote:

How much?

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 5:33 AM Wikipedia Page Creation <ritik.singh@idigitalakki.com> wrote:

Dear,

Thank you for your time and attention.

My name is Ritik Singh, and I am reaching out on behalf of IDigitalakki Pvt Ltd, where we specialize in Wikipedia moderation and page management. We noticed that your recent Wikipedia page Aguike submission was unfortunately rejected.

We understand the value of having a credible and well-maintained Wikipedia presence. Our team of experts is here to assist you in ensuring your page meets all necessary guidelines and is successfully approved.

If you are interested in learning more about how we can help, please feel free to get in touch.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to the opportunity to assist you.

Warm regards,

Ritik Singh

IDigitalakki Pvt Ltd Newyorkgm (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA@Doomsdayer520@Ibjaja055@Shellwood@Tamarlewis

When all of your attempts to make some quick cash failed, you placed the article in "Deletion." You are turning this platform into a huge joke, and I will make sure that this becomes a major public issue. Please delete it. Newyorkgm (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response from one of accused: Huh? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA@Doomsdayer520@Doomsdayer520@Ibjaja055@Newyorkgm@Shellwood

I am a journalist based in Edmonton, Canada. When I first saw this article, I took my time to rewrite it because I happen to know the artist. I attended his concert in 2011 when he headlined the African Music Festival in Edmonton. Aguike happens to be a very private individual who rarely does interviews. I'm sure that if he knows his profile is on Wikipedia, he will ask his publicist to take it down. With all due respect, some of your observations and criticisms are beyond what any professional would expect. The man has been on stage for 30 years, and if you happen not to know him or have issues with the fact that he keeps changing his name, maybe that's his style. Let us maintain some decorum here.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aguike,alias_allah_bama.jpg Tamarlewis (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Newyorkgm you can forward your complaints to the email provided by @CFA. The issue being discussed here is the notability of the subject. If the subject is notable, it will definitely be on Wikipedia either now or later. You have been wrongfully accusing other editors, you need to be polite with your words, it might lead to Casting aspersions on other editors. Calling other editors Liar too are not acceptable. please be polite. A lot of people are out there who send messages like this. You need to ignore them and the nomination for deletion has nothing to do with people messaging you for fee.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddy Jay

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO: no evidence that he passes any factor. His only award is winning an online popularity contest. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 16 August 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. SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therese Moodie-Bloom

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any secondary SIGCOV. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Can't see any notability yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. Although we can have articles on people with significant media coverage despite no significant accomplishments, that requires depth of coverage in independent reliable sourcing that we also don't have. Searches didn't find anything better outside the article. Not quite an A7 speedy, but close. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absolutely zero significant coverage. C F A 💬 22:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I wrote the article because my view is that she is notable, in the sense of "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), because she is the international head of Mensa, which is itself a notable organisation. For the record, I am in the process of gathering other references and citations (my plan is to talk with her later this week). If it turns out that the consensus here is that the article should be deleted, I will continue to improve my local copy of the article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben_morphett/Therese_Moodie_Bloom) until it is in a form that is acceptable to the broader Wikipedia community. Ben morphett (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Head of Mensa is an administrative position, not an award. WP:NCORP might be more relevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that's not an award. She has to meet WP:BASIC like any other president/CEO etc. Notability is not inherited. C F A 💬 14:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here to indicate notability per either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging and didn’t find anything particularly notable about this person. She’s mentioned as a regional official of MENSA, but that’s about it—no major media coverage or awards. Being a member of MENSA doesn’t automatically make someone notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and since MENSA is just an organization, not an award, I suggest moving this page out of the mainspace. If the creator thinks there might be some good sources out there, they can work on the draft in their sandbox and submit the improved draft for review later.50.46.167.81 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- though I disagree with 50.46.167.81 that her notability claim is significantly stronger than just being a member of Mensa, there is not enough evidence that anyone outside of Mensa cares about who their current president is. Not inherited as CFA said, and not satistfying WP:NCORP -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTRESUME. I was once a member of Mensa and that didn't get me a Wikipedia article. Her position with them is not a notable award and she is only visible in various directories. Her side gig as a puzzle creator has received no reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:29, 14 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Vydra

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

This article has been tagged for notability for ten years. It looks very doubtful to me - plenty of sources, but about non-notable awards, local coverage, listicle and stuff that doesn’t really look in-depth. The article looks to me like PR based on the success of prior PR. . Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Czech Republic, and Australia. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No interlanguage Wikipedia to copy over the article. The keyword "Jan Vydra" on search engines find other men with the same name instead of this person, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:39, 13 August 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!} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adedoyin Oseni

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

No enough reliable and secondary sources to establish notability. Only few advertorials by mostly unreliable media, no album and winning of unreliable award Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage on reliable, independent sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:00, 15 August 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!} 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd XV Leagues in Scotland

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

Non-notable league, unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any coverage online, though admittedly, I'm not familiar with this topic area at all. As such, please ping me if sources are found. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Scotland. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt at notability established. No references. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Underwater Archaeology Association

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

I have been unable to find secondary, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this association. The only coverage is in news stories about ships they've found, and those focus on the ships, not the association. The founder of this association might be notable, since he is a published author, but notability is not inherited. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Archaeology, Environment, and Wisconsin. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Of the 3 sources cited on the article, 1 is their own website, the other is a job advertisement that does not discuss the subject in detail, the third is a mere mention from the NY Times. Google search does not yield results that would show significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Lions

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (or really any coverage). toweli (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Longhornsg (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 10 August 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 04:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMW+

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

Dubious notability. I spotchecked several of the sources and most are not independent, dead, or do not discuss this specific software package (as opposed to Semantic MediaWiki which is clearly notable) in sufficient depth to qualify as significant coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad

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

Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. There were almost 800 detainees at Guantanamo, not all of them notable, especially by Wikipedia standards. Being detained at a famous prison does not confer notability, otherwise everyone incarcerated at ADX Florence should have an article as well. In the almost two decades since many of the standalone pages for detainees were created, many of them have properly been redirected to the list articles. Ahmad is another such non-notable detainee. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLP1E TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the subject being notable for only one event. No sustained or significant coverage beyond that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:28, 15 August 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!} 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Watches

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

This appears to be run of the mill retail chain. No claims for notability have been made. Grahame (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. A store that sells watches, that's all. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references about the company that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found to prove notability for an encyalopedia page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:27, 15 August 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 Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235

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

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [15] [16] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 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!} 02:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill College

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

Unable to find independent SIGCOV. There are news articles talking about the school but they are about incidents at the school rather than any deep coverage on the school. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools in New Zealand are generally notable. There will have been in-depth coverage in the 1970s when the school was established, but those records aren't generally online. Schwede 66 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Paperspast and didn't find SIGCOV in the first 20 results. The closest thing would be an article on an arson at the school but it's just run of the mill news reporting and nothing that can be usable for an article about the school specifically. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are no longer presumed notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schwede66. The only newspaper covered by PapersPast for this era is The Press in Christchurch, and most likely The New Zealand Herald would have more coverage for an Auckland school. While most of the coverage in The Press is of routine sporting results, there was mention of the MBE awarded to the first principal and a defence against criticism by the second principal, which I've added to the article. I also added the 1998 arson because it follows an arson a few years earlier already mentioned in the article. The other interesting mention in The Press was Boy copies film lynching, but that could have happened at any school so I chose not to include it. I searched ProQuest for details of the earlier arson but couldn't find it, although there are many mentions of the college in it which might be useful to expand the article, and also Newspaperarchive.com. Both of these resources are available at WP:The Wikipedia Library.-Gadfium (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schwede66 and Gadfium. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schwede66 and Gadfium. A major high school deserves an article I think. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rosehill, New Zealand#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill Intermediate

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

Cannot find any sigcov of school. Everything I can find is just a trivial passing mention. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak delete. Content could possibly be rolled into the article for Rosehill College or something similar. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rosehill, New Zealand#Education._Marshelec (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rosehill, New Zealand#Education, which already contains basic material on this school.-Gadfium (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Bbb23 under G5‎. (non-admin closure) Bestagon ⬡ 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Leaves

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.

Looking at the four refs in the article, the first is discussing a large company failing and just mentions a quote from Seven Leaves' CEO on the subject, the second and third are merely routine coverage, and the fourth merely briefly mentions Seven Leaves' branding strategy along with several other companies.

I performed a WP:BEFORE check, and can't find any more coverage, significant or otherwise. Bestagon ⬡ 02:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Bestagon ⬡ 02:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of the article is now blocked as a sock so the article is eligible for G5. S0091 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu

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

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references presently being used don't establish notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu (now deleted) for a related nomination. toweli (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Merge with Godenu. If this is notable, then there should be news/media stories about individuals who have been awarded this honor, or even obituaries mentioning it. A search of Google news and Bing news did not show any. If anyone knows of any Ghanan newspapers with such articles, that might change things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promo. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merger or should this article be Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple internet search do not show significant coverage in reliable, independent sources at this time. Except for the its self-published website, even the sources cited in the article itself do not contain coverage of the subject. 1 source leads to the constitution of Ghana, only because the name Ghana was mentioned in the sentence. Another leads to the website of the National Commission of Ghana, but that site does not contain any information about the Royal Order of Lions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - was G4 eligible.‎. UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of reliable, secondary sources, aside from WP:ROUTINE sources, to satisfy WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will cite reliable sources to make sure it does not get deleted. Khoa41860 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's next? A list of ice cleaners in the Conference Finals? GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I doubt anything has changed since the first nomination, back in 2016, that sufficiently resolves the notability concerns here. This is actually the second time this year the creator has created these lists — the first attempts, in January, were speedily deleted as G4 (the 2016 nomination closed as delete). I don't know if G4 is still sufficiently valid here, but the potential of persistent recreation will inevitably lead to salting sooner rather than later. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have the ability to see prior versions of this article. Though if it appears that the content was copied, then I would definitely say speedy. Conyo14 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per WP:NLIST. No more now than in 2016 are there reliable sources discussing these broadcasters as a collective group, and I defy the article creator to proffer any. The guidelines of list creation require more than "Ooh, I think this would be neat!" Recreating this was borderline abusive, and adds to the growing list of such actions that Khoa41860's racking up. Sooner or later Khoa41860 needs to learn how to operate within policies and guidelines, or ANI will do the job for them. Ravenswing 14:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need if only updating templates. 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:58C:58FA:772A:DCB6 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete when I fully update the list up to the most recent Conference Finals, and all errors have been updated. Also, I need to cite more reliable citations with publications like CBC, TSN, NBC, and ESPN/ABC without any YouTube videos. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the list to the most recent event does not address the rationales for deletion. Ravenswing 18:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Just because individual components could be sourced, that does not make the list as a whole notable. Flibirigit (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet for a standalone list when individual components and reliable sources with network press releases are properly sourced. Khoa41860 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 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 Purdue University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Homeland Security Institute

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

Delete or redirect to Purdue University. Not much on this page to salvage for a merge. Fails WP:NORG and coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE. Longhornsg (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Terrorism, United States of America, and Indiana. Longhornsg (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purdue University. Found a lot of mentions but no sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:46, 11 August 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!} 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 conference on US privatization of national security

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

Redirect to Private intelligence agency. Fails WP:NEVENT: the conference was a routine academic conference with no WP:LASTING effect, and coverage lacks WP:DEPTH. Better covered in the context of the privatization of intelligence and national security, hence the redirect target. Longhornsg (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Events, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, but that would be a misleading redirect. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *if* there was to be a redirect, this would be the appropriate target: Princeton Project. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pet WP:GNG generally and specifically WP:FRINGE. A one-off “conference”that advocates for the United States to devolve into a semi-feudal, quasi-governmental entity like the Palestinian Authority or the East India Company is fringe, and needs here the equivalent support in terms of significant coverage that we require for the Bermuda Triangle. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 16 August 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (database)

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

Redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the information is already covered. Database, one of likely hundreds that the FBI uses, is not notable on its own and is better covered on the agency's page. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. C F A 💬 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the information related to the Guardian has been included in the FBI article. I suggest creating a new section specifically the Guardian inside that article or adding this information to the existing eGuardian section, before removing this article.

This is one of my first contributions, please let me know if and how I messed up. VicenteGarzaReyna (talk) 21:35, 14 August 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.