Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mobile Fixer Ltd.

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

Sources are promotional or maybe sponsored, not seeing WP:SIGCOV coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 07:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 07:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Anti-Corruption Commission has corruption charges against this company and companies founder . So I created this page which I think fulfills the importance Susdtr (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [1]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [10] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't meet the rigor required by WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added Tejano512 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated abv, new sources have been added. Are more sources needed? A good amount of articles are industry news and not PR. Tejano512 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it could definitely be improved (judging from the AI use) and more reliable sources should be added, WP:ORGCRIT requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for a company to be notable. I think the article's current citations suffice for this requirement. Additionally, this article was only created around two weeks ago; let it breathe a little more. Beachweak (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage fall short of required threshold for WP:NCORP. The sources are PR articles and just two[11][12] appear to be independent with WP:SIGCOV but not sure of their reliability in terms of RS. And even if those two are reliable it still not enough to sustain the article. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The sources are not very robust, so I agree that the article falls short of WP:NCORP. However, since USA Today lists it as one of America's top retailers, there's certainly some potential (once better sources can be found).--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus here yet. It would be very helpful here if an editor put together a source assessment since I'm seeing different feedback on the adequacy of the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about this topic. Considering this article was created in 2006 and only has one source, I doubt there will be any new or lasting coverage of this topic. Beachweak (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([13][14][15][16][17][18]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([19][20][21][22]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Uniswap, it is difficult to see where one entity starts and the other ends and it appears, for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. For example this reference says the company was fined for illegal trading and describes is as a crypto exchange - and this talks about enforcement actions by the SEC. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crew-served weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Only one, apparently unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there's only one source because the creator was lazy. This is a very common term in military circles. I don't as yet have an opinion about Keep or Delete. Intothat darkness 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common concept of weapons systems. Lack of RS on the page not determinative. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, so please state which sources prove the article passes WP:NEXIST rather than just implying they might exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any kind of search before you nominated the article? The Google Books search alone turned up over 6000 hits, and Scholar over 600. Intothat darkness 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and everything seemed trivial. WP:GHITS is relevant here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 6000 hits is not trivial. That you choose to ignore this is concerning. Grossman's "On Combat" alone contains at least three references to crew-served weapons according to the Google book search, and one of those ties back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire." Both works are hardly trivial. Intothat darkness 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common military concept and term is frequently used in both specialist and general literature. Intothat darkness 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, please include valid sources instead of claiming they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established term and concept in military circles. Yes, the article is in a bad state now, but Wikipedia has no deadline. I have concerns about the nominator's mass nomination of weapon-type related articles over the last few days, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs. Furthermore, like others you have not expounded on what sources are there, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any part of my response pointed to me desiring to force people to change their mind, so it is not bludgeoning... On the contrary, I want to see what kinds of sources people are claiming to possess, which is a legitimate question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to know that it is BLUDGEONING. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1. Responding to everybody IS central to the definition of bludgeoning. 2. Nobody has made a particularly persuasive case yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect to Wiktionary: which already has an entry for it. Multiple routine mentions, or being a well-established term, aren't sufficient for notability per our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not shown. No objection to turning it into a redirect. Nurg (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing another week for discussion of the idea of redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few editors have claimed that there is sufficient sourcing for an article beyond a dictionary definition, yet no sources have been provided here. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is well accepted and frequently used. But it doesn't need an article. A dictionary definition is enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weapon#By user, where this weapon type is mentioned. This seems to be an important class of weapons, and I did try to find scholarly evaluations of "crew-served weapons" as a class. But all I found were military training manuals. I disagree with outright deletion as we do have coverage of this sort of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia.
With respect to redirecting to Wiktionary, WP:SSRT states that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. There are 173 links to this page from the mainspace as of now, so it's not unreasonable to suggest sending it over there. But I think we should try to keep the redirect linking to Wikipedia if it's reasonable, and we have a reasonable alternative here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, to editors arguing for a Keep, please bring new sources into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

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

Not finding anything that satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this school that devote significant coverage to this school are provided. This two sentence stub makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cullen328: I found that a French newspaper covered the school. You can check the articles via Google Translate, and please let me know if this is the kind of coverage that would be useful. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply WhisperToMe, three articles from the same newspaper is certainly better than nothing, but it looks a lot like run-of-the-mill local coverage to me. I guess it comes down to whether "the largest school in Alsace" is a plausible claim of notability. Thanks for finding those sources and adding them to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! I found another article from a different newspaper which compared the school to that of a city (I'm not sure how significant that is in the universe of French high schools). I cant see all of it yet since it seems to be paywalled. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a more solid consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [23] [24] [25], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Soviet–Afghan War: It's pretty short as it is, and does need some work to let it less pov-y. It might also need a bit of a copyedit Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Belly Burger

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

Fails GNG no real world information just a list of apperances Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Food and drink, Television, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's marginal with what's already in there. References 2, 50-53, and 55 are interesting non-primary sources but I don't see a good solid 2+ IRS references for GNG. At the very least, there's probably enough here to merge into one of the DC Universe pages, but I haven't the foggiest idea which. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that suggests that there could be more out there to further develop this article (so Keep), if you're looking for a merge target, maybe List of DC Universe locations? - jc37 06:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is entirely in-universe cruft with nothing to establish notability. I don't think it's even worthy of merging/redirecting to any DC-related article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Turner & Company

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spain

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

Non-notable news anchor. Only obituaries and no viable career coverage, while a real estate agent dominates name searches. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville TV personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Kelton

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

Non-notable news anchor with no viable independent coverage. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville television personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, California, Florida, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland (audio drama)

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any reviews of it online, checked Google and ProQuest, though I might've missed some due to the search term I used to avoid false positives. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Muslims

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

This page was a disambigutation until recently, when someone removed it as a disamb, saying a valid broad concept article could be written about it. Afterwards, I tagged it as unreferenced, and one reference was added. I dispute the fact that this is notable as a broad concept and think it should be restored as a disamb. The concept of "Black Muslims" is not relevant outside of these specific examples, and Black as a racial category is not universal outside of the US (which we have a separate article on in relation to Islam). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, it would be better to just restore the disambiguation via a manual revert if your argument is to restore the disambiguation rather than delete the page, or instead start a discussion about that on the talk page pinging the relevant user(s). Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why you take things to AfD. Should this be a disamb? Because as it is now, it is an improperly formatted one, or an entirely non-notable topic that should be deleted, which is also a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Ihnatenko

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Galyeta

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiia Yalova

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AED Studios

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

Contested PROD; likely WP:UPE for a company that fails WP:NCORP. In reviewing the sources in the article, they don't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Most are WP:ORGTRIV about location openings, capital raises, etc. ([26], [27]). There is also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A with the CEO ([28], marketing content from a company that installed chargers in AED Studios' parking lot ([29]) and a story that doesn't mention the company at all ([30]). Finally, the article also uses stories from a site that exists to promote Flemish entrepreneurs (see their About Us, which roughly translated says: "We are proud of entrepreneurial Flanders.... We are on the side of these entrepreneurs, to strengthen and encourage them, to ignite their entrepreneurial fire... Our news reflects the optimism of the entrepreneur." This is obviously not an independent source. [31], [32]). A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and more ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Roggeman

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

A non-notable businessman with a promotional biography; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Attempted to draftify, but a draft had been left behind and can't be CSD'd, so AfD it is. The sources are limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of routine news coverage of his business ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37])
A WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview ([38])
Unbylined WP:PROMO content ([39]) and several pieces of content on a site that exists to promote Flemish entrepreneurs (see their About Us, which roughly translated says: "We are proud of entrepreneurial Flanders.... We are on the side of these entrepreneurs, to strengthen and encourage them, to ignite their entrepreneurial fire... Our news reflects the optimism of the entrepreneur." Obviously not an independent source.) Also, the stories on this site are about AED Group, not Roggeman.

Nothing else qualifying came up in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. There is little reliable, in-depth coverage of this business executive that shows that he has, as the article suggests, had a significant impact on his field. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 03:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding management software

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

Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Imcdc Contact 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lone (primary) source cited — a wedding magazine — no doubt pulled this "term" from their rear. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]